Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired? w/ @thoughtfulfaith2020 and @TheCounselofTrent

[Music]

Any sinner is capable of being a great Saint, and any saint is also capable of being a great sinner. A great sin, a great.

[Music]

The secret, therefore, of all right. You're live, and we're live here with Jacob Hansen and Trent Horn. Welcome to this debate. Very excited for it. Thank you for coming in studio. Thank you. Something nice about having people around a table than than doing these Skype interviews. Um, rather than doing lengthy introductions, you can check below to learn more about our debaters. The topic for the debate is, "Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired?" We're going to have opening statements of 15 minutes each, and then a rebuttal of 7 minutes each, a second rebuttal of 4 minutes each. We'll then have a cross-examination. Each debater will have 15 minutes, followed by audience Q&A. Um, if you want to have your, if you want to direct a question to one of the debaters, feel free to put in a super chat, but please know that we may not be able to get to all of them. So don't get angry with me if and when that happens. I thought it would be helpful if I read a description of the Book of Mormon so that we both know what we're talking about. And, uh, this is an excerpt that both Trent and Jacob have have have agreed to.

The Book of Mormon is a religious text considered scripture to Latter-day Saints. The book describes itself as a record of ancient American people, uh, who descended from a family that left Jerusalem around 600 BC. The book focuses on two main groups called Lamanites and Nephites. Did I get that right? That's correct. Good. Their prophets, teachings, their wars, and their interactions with Jesus Christ, who appears after his resurrection. The text emphasizes faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and the importance of following God's Commandments. It aims to complement the Bible and offer additional insights into God's dealings with his children. The Book of Mormon purports to have been written on gold plates and buried by the prophet Moroni in the early 5th Century AD. In 1827, Joseph Smith reported being directed by Moroni's spirit to retrieve the plates. Smith claimed he translated the plates through the gift and power of God. The translated text, known as The Book of Mormon, was central to the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and, along with the Bible, is considered scripture to its members.

All right, so since Jacob is taking the affirmative of, "Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired?" Jacob, whenever you want to begin, you have 15 minutes.

All right, thank you very much. Let me do this. Yeah, thanks for being here too. This is fun. All right, okay. Well, first of all, thank you to, uh, Matt and Trent for both of you guys for making this debate happen. It's an honor to be here. Now, for most people, The Book of Mormon is kind of a joke. It's a laughable work of religious fiction. But isn't that what many people say about the Bible? Trent, today will argue, or today I will argue that if you take the Book of Mormon as seriously as you take the Bible, a profound mystery emerges. Not only does the book have a demonstrable positive effect on people, it almost certainly did not come from Joseph Smith. When you look at the evidence that most people are not even aware of, things like one, archaeological evidence, two, literary evidence, three, historical evidence, four, eyewitness testimony, and five, the positive effect that the book has on people. If Trent wants to say that it's reasonable for a person to believe in the Bible, I will say that this evidence makes it reasonable to believe in the divine inspiration behind the Book of Mormon.

So let's start with archaeology. The Book of Mormon begins by describing Lehi's family's journey and claims that they come to a place in Southwest Arabia that was called Nahom. There they built, or they buried Ishmael. And they said that the trail turned East. And it just so happens that in the 1990s, the German Archaeological Institute discovered a place called Nahom in Southwest Arabia, right where the ancient frankincense trail turns East. It also was a place of burials, and astoundingly, it even had a grave with the name Ishmael on it that dated to the 6th Century BC. A lucky guess? Well, maybe. But it gets even crazier because The Book of Mormon says that due east of Nahom is a coastal land that Lehi called Bountiful, because of its lush landscapes, fruit trees, running water, iron ore, wild honey, and in total, more than a dozen specific features, totally out of place for the deserts of Arabia. And guess what you find when you go to the coast directly east of Nahom? You find the strange Dofar region of Oman. It's an unusual 20-mile stretch of lush coastline which contains every one of the dozen specific features described in the Book of Mormon. It's an astounding bullseye. Now, I could go on and talk about the discovery of the Valley of Lemuel and other evidences from archaeology. But let's go on to number two, the literary evidence.

So Trent's theory is that a 23-year-old farm laborer with a third-grade education was not only able to come up with real undiscovered locations in the Near East, but that he was also able to write a 500-page book in a little over two months in a single draft. How remarkable is this? Well, have you ever written an eight-page, single-spaced essay in a single draft? Try doing that every single day for the next three months. Studies show that genius authors like J.K. Rowling and Stephen King produce about 200 to 400 words a day. Joseph was able to produce an astounding 4,000 words per day, and in a single draft, he produced one of the most influential religious texts of all time. This complex book includes multiple overlapping narratives, multiple writing styles, complex theology, Psalms, chastic poetry, poetry, a, uh, authentic ancient Hebrew legal forms, and much, much more. The, uh, even non-Mormon Pulitzer Prize winner Daniel Walker Howe said that what Joseph produced should, quote, "rank among the greatest works of American literature." And the atheist literary critic Harold Bloom, after studying Smith, called him a religious genius. So if Trent wants to say that Joseph was just some genius storyteller that was making things up, he's also going to need to explain away the authentic historical aspects of the book. For instance, here are some funny-sounding names in The Book of Mormon: Himni, Lamoni, Aha, Amona, Chish, Hagoth, Mokai, Abish, Maona. Now, pretty much everyone thought that those were just made-up names until during the past 80 years, archaeologists have discovered every single one of them in various ancient Hebrew texts. Trent is going to need to explain how Joseph, during his stream-of-consciousness dictation process, was able to make up over a dozen undiscovered ancient Hebrew names.

Now, moving on, the Catholic Answers website says that chiasmus is an ancient Hebrew literary form that lists items in one order and then poetically repeats them back in reverse order. For example, "He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life shall find it" is a simple two-item chiasmus. Now, remarkably, in 1967, textual scholars discovered dozens of complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon, including one in Alma 36 spanning 30 verses with an astounding 17 items given in one order and then back again in reverse order, interwoven into a poetic sermon on Christ's redemptive power. The scholar John Welch calls it "one of the finest examples of chiasmic composition anywhere in world literature." Also, Trent needs to explain why the Book of Mormon makes so many authentic Hebrew wordplays. For example, "Gershon" in the in Hebrew is associated with the idea of an inheritance, and it just so happens that Gershon is the name given to the, quote, "land of inheritance" for the refugee people of Ammon. Also, it should be noted that the Book of Mormon contains 337 proper names, yet none of them have the letter Q, X, or W in them. Now, that may seem like an odd pattern until you realize that ancient Hebrew did not have the letter Q, W, or X. Also, what are the chances that King Zedekiah had a son named Mulek, as the Book of Mormon predicts? Well, he did, but we didn't know that until the 20th century. And I could go on and on. But let's go on to number four, eyewitness testimony.

Did you know that we have over 150 statements from a total of 19 different eyewitnesses who, despite facing extermination orders, mob violence, and two of them being murdered, went to their deaths saying that they saw the gold plates? Can you imagine how excited Trent would be if we discovered over 150 accounts from 19 separate eyewitnesses of the resurrection? Here are just two of these accounts. Someone once claimed that Martin Harris, one of the witnesses, had hallucinated and only saw the plates in a vision. Here was his response: "Gentlemen, do you see this hand? Are you sure that you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand, so sure did I see the plates." Trent has also implied in his book on Mormonism that they were liars and they were part of a 19-person conspiracy to join Smith for personal gain. But this conspiracy theory makes no sense when you learn that many of these eyewitnesses eventually left the church or were excommunicated, but still refused to deny their testimony despite immense pressure to do so. Look up the history. Over and over, when these witnesses had everything to gain by denying their testimony, they would not do it. Another one of the witnesses to the gold plates was named Oliver Cowdery. He said the following on his deathbed to his friend: "Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I'm a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know that wherever I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind. It was real."

But how can you tell if this book was divinely inspired and not demonically inspired? Well, our Lord Jesus Christ answered this. He said that future prophets would would come and, quote, "By their fruits ye shall know them." So imagine there was a book out there that consistently caused people to become more giving, more loving, more faithful, and more Christlike. Would it be crazy to think that such a book was in some way divinely inspired? Well, that book exists, and it's called The Book of Mormon. The published academic literature is remarkable. Latter-day Saints give astonishing seven times more volunteer work to their community than your average American. Latter-day Saints financially give four to six times more to nonprofits than your average American, and that's more than any other major religious group in the country. Latter-day Saint temple marriages are three to five times less likely to end in divorce, and those stable marriages produce more children than any other major religious group. Also, in 2010, Pew Research found that people from these Latter-day Saint families knew more about the Bible than any other Christian group that they studied. And just to top that off, Latter-day Saints live an astounding seven years longer and experience significantly better physical and mental health than your average American. So it should not surprise us that despite the continuous mockery of our beliefs, even by other Christians, studies on happiness find over and over that Latter-day Saints report the highest levels of life satisfaction. Now, we are not a perfect people, okay? We have our issues. But Trent is going to have to explain how an evil con man produced a book that leads people to be so consistently healthy, happy, and charitable. Keep in mind, Christ himself said that an evil tree does not bring forth good fruit. So why is it that Latter-day Saints are demonstrably such a benefit to the communities that they reside in? This is not a mystery for me. I have experienced the real power that comes from words, words like these in the Book of Mormon: "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, and we prophesy of Christ, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. And now, seeing that ye know the light by which you may judge, which is the Light of Christ, I beseech you that you should search diligently in the Light of Christ, and if you will lay hold upon every good thing and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ." It's hard to believe that our friend here, Matt Fred, has actually said that Catholics should burn those words because he believes that the Book of Mormon is demonic. But if you actually read the book, you will find the Book of Mormon explicitly puts Jesus Christ at its center, and that is why doing, and that is why, along with the Bible, it is the power to change people, including me. And that is why, despite derision and mockery, I am here to proclaim The Book of Mormon is another divinely inspired Testament of Jesus Christ.

So here, here's what I want Trent to do. I want him to stick his head in a hat and I want him to dictate eight single-spaced pages, single-spaced, every day for the next two and a half months and create a poetic and theological work with multiple narrators that predict specific undiscovered locations in the Near East and that correctly predicts dozens of elements specific to those locations. He will also need to come up with over a dozen undiscovered names in the ancient Near East and dictate over a dozen poetic chiasms, including one on human redemption with 17 elements given in one order and then repeated back in reverse order, all with his face buried in a hat. Also, he'll need to create multiple authentic Hebrew wordplays, predict the undiscovered name of an ancient Israelite prince, and create 300 names with plausible Hebrew origins without using the letters W, Q, or X. He must do this stream-of-consciousness dictation in the presence of multiple witnesses and he must do it in a single draft. And what he produces must be called genius by atheist literary critics 150 years from now. Then he must convince 19 people so powerfully that they saw gold plates that they don't deny their testimonies, even on their deathbeds, or even after he excommunicates them from his church. I posit that it is unreasonable to think that Trent could do all of these things, and so it is unreasonable to think that Joseph could. Now, Trent and I both agree it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is inspired. But despite the archaeological, literary, historical, eyewitness, and spiritual evidence, Trent will reject the inspiration behind the Book of Mormon, and this will clearly expose Trent's double standard. Trent will argue like an atheist today, just watch. Essentially, all of the arguments that Trent makes against the Book of Mormon are the same arguments that atheists can make against the Bible or the Catholic Church. For example, he'll say that the Book of Mormon is not inspired because he thinks that there's not enough archaeological evidence. But will Trent apply that same standard to the Book of Exodus or the many other biblical books that lack essentially any archaeological evidence for the events that they describe? He'll talk about anachronisms in the Book of in the Book of Mormon, but he'll ignore biblical anachronisms like iron tools being made by Tubal-Cain a thousand or more years before the Iron Age. So watch carefully. Will Trent deal with the evidence that I've presented, or will he argue like an atheist? And without a, my time.

All right, thanks very much. Trent, you have 15 minutes whenever you start talking, I'll click the timer.

[Music]

All righty, this is fun. All right, well, thank you, Matt. Thank you, Jacob. Excuse me. In 1986, the Mormon president, Ezra Taft Benson, said, "Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon." So, Jacob, is the burden of showing The Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. He gave some reasons, and I'll address those in my rebuttal, and I'll show that I certainly don't argue with a double standard. But for now, I want to give you four reasons, positive reasons, to show the Book of Mormon is merely a human document.

So, number one, geographic mystery. Many Bibles contain maps that describe where biblical events took place. If you get Christian, Jewish, and atheistic scholars together in a room, they would agree on those maps, even though they disagree about what happened at those sites. But you can't do that for the Book of Mormon. In spite of all its geographical references, Mormons only know the events in the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in North and South America. Some Mormons say they took place in Central America, others say as far away as the Great Lakes of the American Heartland. That would be like Christians disagreeing on whether Jesus was crucified in Judea or England. And the silence in the archaeological record is deafening. For example, one of the largest cities in ancient America, Cahokia, had about 20,000 people spread out over a hundred earthwork settlements. But Zarahemla, a city in the Book of Mormon that had at least 100,000 people in it, has never been found. We haven't even found a single example of Hebrew or Egyptian script that should be in the New World if the Book of Mormon were true. Though we have found ancient examples of words like Israel in the Old World. Mormons can't even agree on which real rivers or mountains are described in the Book of Mormon. Fletcher B. Hammond wrote in "The Geography of the Book of Mormon" that God changed the world's topography after the fact so that faith would be required to believe in the Book of Mormon. Very convenient. Plus, the Book of Mormon contains things we know did not exist in ancient America, and these anachronisms are nothing like what is alleged in scripture. For example, it describes horses and chariots, even though there were no chariots and horses were introduced after Christopher Columbus. Some Mormons say the word horses refers to tapirs, they look like kind of big, weird-looking pigs in Central and South America, and the chariots were litters carried by other humans. But then why are the horses always mentioned with the chariots if they didn't pull them? And why would you want an overgrown pig with a royal litter? It's no wonder the National Geographic Society has said, "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past, and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." And while not every biblical event has archaeological confirmation, scholars roughly agree on where they allegedly happened. And this is far different than an entire ancient history like what is alleged in the Book of Mormon having no archaeological evidence for it, including alleged things found in the Old World like Nahom, from letters that are just NHM, and other words that are very similar to Hebrew words.

All right, number two. My second reason is that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. The book of Deuteronomy says a false prophet leads people away from the true God and he fails to predict the future. Joseph Smith is guilty on both of these counts, so we should not believe God used a false prophet like him to transmit inspired revelation. In his "History of the Church," Smith prophesied that Jesus would return sometime in the 19th century and that the government of the United States would be overthrown, both of which, of course, didn't happen. Mormons like to say Joseph Smith predicted the Civil War 30 years before it happened, but anyone at the time knew there were troubles between the North and South. Smith also predicted that, quote, "War will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place," but no other nations fought in the American Civil War, which shows this was a false prophecy. And Smith definitely led people away to believe in false gods. At the funeral for Elder King Fette, Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens." According to the Book of Abraham, which Smith also allegedly translated, God is a superpowered man who rules near a star or planet named Kolob. If Mormons are faithful enough, they too can become gods and rule over their own universes alongside the spouses they married in this life. But this contradicts a central truth about God: the Creator is not and never has been a creature. The omnipotent God can become man or assume a human nature along with his divine nature, but man cannot become God. The fact that Smith taught the contrary means he is a false prophet. Speaking of the Book of Abraham, Smith claimed he translated an ancient papyrus written in Abraham's own hand that talks about the gods creating the world. But even Mormon Egyptologists agree that the papyrus he allegedly translated from was simply a collection of second-century Egyptian funerary texts that say nothing about Abraham and definitely were not written by him. Some Mormon apologists claim that Joseph Smith was just using the papyri to help him write down visions that he had. But in his own diary, Smith claims to have translated the document. He even wrote an Egyptian alphabet and grammar to help him translate, even though he wasn't actually doing that. But it's not only the Book of Abraham that reveals that Smith was a false prophet. This is a three-quarter scale model of the gold, the alleged golden plates, the Book of Mormon was translated from. Uh, 23 of them were sealed and couldn't be opened, so that means there were at most 40 plates, about 6x8 inches with characters on them. All right, and on these 40 plates, there would have been enough characters to contain information in the 550 pages of the Book of Mormon. In order to contain that much information, every character on this plate, on any of these plates, would have to represent 50 to 80 words. But ancient hieroglyphics do not work like that. Joseph Smith thought they did until decades later in the 19th century, e.g., the language of the Egyptians was deciphered, and we saw that that is not the case. Actual ancient metal plates like the plates of Darius only contain about 200 words per page. What is in the Book of Mormon could not, on any so-called reformed Egyptian or any real language, have been contained on alleged golden plates like these. This shows Smith's claim about the reformed Egyptian was simply part of his own imagination. In 1828, Martin Harris offered to assist Joseph Smith in the translation of the plates, but Harris lost 116 pages of the translated manuscript that Smith gave him. So Smith claimed in response that God was angry at the loss of the pages, and he and God would only allow Smith to translate that story from another set of plates that were included. Those plates told the same story as the original manuscripts that were lost, but from a slightly different perspective. Now, this all seems odd, doesn't it? Well, it doesn't seem odd if you think that if Smith were just dictating a story from memory and not actually translating, it would have been nearly impossible for him to reproduce what he originally dictated to Martin Harris and prove he wasn't a prophet. Smith even describes in his book, Doctrine and Covenants, how his critics would have used the loss of the pages to try to prove he was not miraculously translating the golden plates and so he wasn't a prophet. Finally, Smith did what many false prophets have done throughout history. He used his status to acquire power, such as by becoming a town mayor, running for president of the United States, and acquiring multiple wives for himself, some as young as 14 years old, which was a very large age difference even in the 19th century where women on average married at the age of 20 or 21. Smith lied to his wife Emma about two of these marriages, his sister to sisters Emily and Eliza Partridge. And one Mormon apologist even admits, "It is certainly true that Joseph did not disclose all of his plural marriages precisely when they happened." That's one way to put it. Smith also ordered a printing press to be destroyed for publishing works that were critical of him. He was later arrested in connection to this act and died in a shootout using a gun smuggled into the jail where he was being held. Joseph Smith was not a true prophet who died a martyr's death. He was a false prophet who met the ignoble end of so many other false prophets throughout history.

Number three, the argument from plagiarism and mediocrity. I'm not Mormon for the same reason Jacob isn't Muslim. Many Muslims say the Quran must be divinely inspired because an illiterate shepherd could not have composed something so beautiful and complex. Now, Jacob might say, "Muhammad, maybe he wasn't incapable of doing that," or maybe somebody else wrote the Quran. But he would say, "Any human explanation is far more likely than God giving a public revelation that contradicts what he had already revealed in scripture." For example, and that's what I say about the Book of Mormon. Now, I will say this: The Book of Mormon is good and original. However, the good parts aren't original to the Book of Mormon, and the original parts aren't good. When it comes to the actual original parts of the Book of Mormon, they do lack a divine quality. While many non-Christians are familiar with eloquent biblical stories like the Parable of the Prodigal Son or The Sermon on the Mount, non-Mormons are unaware of anything as eloquent in the Book of Mormon. Far from being divinely inspired, the book is barely inspired by human standards. For example, Mark Twain thought the Bible was false, but Twain also admired the Bible had, quote, "noble poetry in it and some clever fables." When it comes to the Book of Mormon, however, Mark Twain said the following: "It is chloroform in print." "If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle keeping awake." That is, whenever he found a speech growing too modern, which was about every sentence or two, he ladled in a few such scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore" and "it came to pass," which was his pet phrase. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet. Indeed, the entire book feels like a mediocre novel delivered by a sermon that's gone on far too long, as can be seen in over 1500 uses of the phrase "and it came to pass," which helped break up the narrative for someone who is orally presenting it. Smith's presentation was also aided by ripping off hundreds of New Testament themes and imagery that he repackaged for characters in his story. For example, if you look at Alma 19 and John 11, you can clearly tell the same vocabulary, languages used from the raising of Lazarus, including the unique word "he stinketh." Uh, in fact, one out of every seven verses in the Book of Mormon, Smith simply copied from the King James Bible, which he was intimately familiar with, as he said in 1832, including its own grammatical errors that somehow show up in an ancient text. Now, the entire chapters of Isaiah that are copied in the Book of Mormon could be explained by ancient Americans regurgitating their alleged Israelite history. But that does not explain copies of the New Testament. They would not have known about being quoted in the Book of Mormon because they had already left the Holy Land and wouldn't have access to that. For example, Moroni, chapter 10, directly copies 1 Corinthians 12's list of spiritual gifts: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, and discernment of spirits, all in that order. But Moroni, allegedly living in the 4th century America, would have only known the Old Testament of his alleged ancestors. He could not have known about Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. That's why in his defense of the Book of Mormon, Robert Bennett says, "Smith inadvertently slipped into language with which he was familiar, which we'd expect from a good storyteller." And someone doesn't have to have formal schooling to be a good storyteller. Mark Twain himself had very little formal education. Smith's own mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said the following about Joseph Smith in her autobiography: "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode, their cities, their buildings with every particular, their mode of warfare, and also their religious worship. This he could do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." Finally, there's a troubling fact. The basic story of The Book of Mormon, that Native Americans were descendants of Jews who migrated to America in 600 BC, had been published a few years earlier in a book called "View of the Hebrews" written by Ethan Smith. Fawn Brodie, the author of the first scholarly biography of Joseph Smith, says, "The striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence." Indeed, the idea that Native Americans were the descendants of ancient Jews who immigrated to the Americas was a common one in the 19th century, so it fits within the claim that a human author concocted the story, especially since the science of genetics proves Native Americans are not descendants of Jewish migrants. That disproves Smith's claim that, quote, "Smith said this: Our western tribes of Indian are descendants from that Joseph which was sold into Egypt." Now, uh oh.

And now, number four, the, the Catholic argument against the Book of Mormon. So the Second Vatican Council taught that, "The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical, visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possessed the priesthood. We just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it. After all, Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church." Moreover, this church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible that Mormons rely on as their sacred text. But the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively also teaches there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles, which includes The Book of Mormon. So one can make this argument: If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired. And Catholicism is true, so the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired. This is a valid argument. So if Jacob can't disprove Catholicism, that means Catholics should reject the Book of Mormon. But even if you are not Catholic, the fact that Mormons cannot agree on where the events in the Book of Mormon allegedly took place, Joseph Smith was in error when he tried to divinely translate or prophesy, and the Book of Mormon contains obvious plagiarisms of works its authors would not have known about, gives us good reason to believe the Book of Mormon was merely the product of human beings and is not a divinely inspired text. And the arguments I've given would apply to the Book of Mormon, but do not apply in any way to the Bible. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Trent. We now move into our first rebuttal. So Jacob, you have, uh, seven minutes whenever you'd like to start.

Okay, all right. So, um, it's kind of funny how he says that none of these arguments apply to the Bible. Like he's talking about the lack of archaeology. I've noticed he didn't bring up anything about archaeology in the Book of Exodus. Um, in fact, the archaeological evidence related to the Book of Exodus is abysmal. Um, and even, uh, Jimmy Akin, a good friend of of Trent, did an episode on it. You guys should watch it. It's, it's pretty funny because he literally makes all the exact same arguments that you hear people make about the Book of Mormon when they're unsure about the archaeology. But there's a difference. We do know the location of where the Exodus took place. And so it's really odd to hear him have this double standard. Um, the other thing is is the Catholic argument. I mean, if I came to this debate and I said, Trent, or a Muslim, let's say, came to this debate and said, "Well, Islam is true, therefore anything that contradicts it, uh, must be false." That's, that's the sort of reasoning that we're going with here. Like, that just seems really below Trent's kind of caliber of argument. Now, to get into a few of the different things, first of all, I want to ask a question: What has more archaeological evidence, the book of First Nephi in the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Exodus in the Bible? I have brought up not just that Nahom had three letters in it that are correct. I, it's not just a name they found Nahom. It was at the Eastern Trail or Eastern turn in the frankincense trail, just as the Book of Mormon describes. It's a burial grounds. They found a grave there from the sixth century with the name Ishmael. I'm not saying it's Ishmael, but they did find one. And then directly east of there is a rare coastal oasis with a dozen specific features that align with it. To say that there's no archaeological evidence whatsoever for the Book of Mormon is just absurd. Because can you imagine how excited Trent would be if we had that kind of archaeological evidence for the Book of Exodus or any of the first five books of the Bible for that matter? The entire Torah. Go look it up. Um, it's funny, Trent's friend Jimmy Akin said the quote, "The absence of evidence for the Book of Exodus is not necessarily evidence of absence." So that's the standard Trent holds to with the Book of Exodus, but he doesn't hold that for the Book of Mormon. So let's move on to, let's talk a little bit about, um, the plagiarism argument. Again, Jimmy, Jimmy helped me out on this one because people say, "Well, there's biblical quotes in there, so it must be a plagiarized book." Here's what Jimmy said about the plagiarism argument: He said, quote, "This isn't a good argument. Ancient texts would borrow from each other, so it's something that you would expect in the ancient world. The fact that there are passages in the Bible, in fact, there are passages in the Bible that do exactly this. If you look at Isaiah 2:2-4, it has exactly the same prophecy in the same words as Micah verses 1-3, and Micah doesn't give credit to Isaiah. Scholars have a name for this, they call it intertextuality, and we find it in the Bible. So I wouldn't criticize The Book of Mormon for it." So again, it just shows that Trent will allow for intertextuality in the Bible, but he won't in the Book of Mormon. The other thing is that Trent has a whole video about about how translations are done, and he talks about the difference between a literal equivalence translation and a dynamic equivalence translation. In other words, the difference between translating idea for idea versus literal word for word. The Book of Mormon is clearly a dynamic translation of an ancient text into the King James English of the 19th century, utilizing the vocabulary available to Joseph Smith. So when you have things like anachronisms, which do exist in the Bible, you come across things like this: The Bible in English talks about candlesticks, but candlesticks didn't exist in first-century Palestine. So there, there's a very reasonable explanation for this that Trent would talk about. It's called a translator's anachronism. Sometimes when doing a translation, you have to use more modern words or concepts that are familiar to, familiar to your audience in order to convey the intended meaning. Trent will allow this for the Bible, but for some reason, he won't consider it as a possibility for the Book of Mormon. But I guess it's probably because his line of logic ultimately is, "The Catholic Church is true, therefore the Book of Mormon must be false," and he's unwilling to even question that assumption. So there is a difference between an actual anachronism and an apparent anachronism. What Trent didn't mention is that about 60 years ago, they made a big list of all these, until it wasn't barley was an anachronism, and Trent even had it in his book, but it actually isn't an anachronism. They found little barley. So remember, just because something is an apparent anachronism doesn't mean it's an actual anachronism. And so when you consider both translator's anachronisms and apparent anachronisms, you can account for these things that seem out of place in the Book of Mormon.

Let's talk real quick about Joseph Smith. Um, first of all, it's funny Trent says this about the Catholic Church. He says, "If some members of the church fail in the moral life, that does not change if the church's teachings are true." So he's going after Joseph Smith's character, using kind of recycled gossip and and things that and assertions that aren't true. Um, it, it'd be like me going to James White to find out about the history of the Catholic Church, right? He can dig into that rumor mill all he wants. Also, it's funny he implies that Joseph Smith used his position in the church to get sex with more women. But for some reason, he doesn't apply that same standard to Abraham or Jacob or the many other biblical prophets that had more than one wife. Now, also, does Trent realize that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas said that plural marriage can be justified in some circumstances? Also, here's some things you guys don't know about Joseph Smith, okay? First of all, there is a difference between a sealing and a marriage. Joseph was sealed to a lot of women. Guess how many children he had with women other than his wife Emma, who he, by the way, had like, got pregnant like 11 times? Zero. No other woman besides Emma ever conceived. And they've tried to find people that they thought were tied to Joseph Smith, and every time they find they were wrong. The reality is, we don't know a lot about the nature of Joseph's sealings to these other women, but it's easy to dig into the rumor mill to try and go after Joseph to avoid talking about the Book of Mormon. That's time.

All right, Trent, when have you already? You have 7 minutes.

All righty, okay. Look, even if Joseph Smith didn't write this book, that doesn't mean that God did it. The Book of Mormon is not so complex it has to be divine. There's about 350 names in The Book of Mormon. One-third of them are biblical names like Ishmael, and another third are variants like Nahom with an O instead of N, with a U in scripture. When it comes to alleged Hebraisms in the text, that would make sense if it's trying to imitate the King James Bible, which is an English translation of originally Hebrew documents. But the Book of Mormon is weird because it's a 19th-century translation that makes ancient Jews sound like 17th-century Christians. And the King James English was not what was spoken in Joseph Smith's time. It's more rather he wants to make the Book of Mormon sound like the King James Bible. When it comes to the chiasms that Jacob brought up, those things come up in all kinds of literature, even Dr. Seuss. And as scholar Earl Wonderly has shown, the most impressive chiasms, like Alma 36, they only exist if you cherry-pick the text and ignore where it's not actually chiasmic. And Smith didn't have to be literate. In fact, studies have shown that illiterate people have better memories. Think about all the phone numbers you used to know before you got a cell phone. Uh, a friend said that Joseph Smith's father had a tongue as smooth as oil. Uh, one witness said, "Joe, Joseph Smith could beat them all for tough stories." And Smith was acquainted with local Native Americans like Red Jacket or Handsome Lake, that stirred his imagination for those people's connection to Christianity. We also keep in mind that Joseph Smith was a member of the, uh, of a juvenile debating society, and school children at that time could memorize entire things like the entire Gospel of Matthew in a few weeks or give impromptu sermons that lasted for hours. And of course, 10% of the Book of Mormon are just copies of the Bible. N. Norman Perry has shown that Slavic oral storytellers can recite epic poems over 300,000 words in length, longer than the Book of Mormon, I would say, in just a few weeks. So the Book of Mormon being recited in a few months is not impossible by human standards. Smith recited 4,000 words per day to scribes who wrote at a speed of about 10 words per minute, and we speak at about 150 words per minute. That's plenty of time to give a recitation. And the Book of Mormon is filled with stock phrases like "behold" or "and it came to pass," as well as recycled story structures to help an oral presenter recite it. Moreover, unlike Christ or the Apostles, Joseph Smith and Muhammad, anyone else, they didn't perform any verifiable miracles to authenticate their status as prophets. All we have is a book that allegedly no human being could create. And as I said, even if it wasn't Smith, maybe it could be someone else, someone else. We haven't been shown that only God could have been responsible for this book or the Quran or any similar kind of book coming into existence. And the argument, "Well, by their fruits, we know them." Well, that could also apply to the Quran. People say the Quran makes Muslims pray five times a day, and they have wonderful communities and exhibit all these moral fruits. But you, and the same argument could go against Catholicism. I could say, not against, but I could say, "Look, Catholicism must be true." Early Mormon teachers interpreted the Book of Mormon's references to the Great and Abominable Church in the Book of Mormon, they referred that to being the Catholic Church. But how could the Catholic Church be great and abominable or be false if it's produced so many great saints throughout history? We can't compare fruit versus fruit. Mormons are very nice people. Jacob's the nicest person I've debated, especially recently. But we can't compare fruit versus fruit. We have to compare evidence versus evidence. So what about these alleged witnesses to the Book of Mormon? All we have are eight people who allegedly saw golden plates under cloth, saw some kind of artifact, whether it was true or not. And we have three witnesses who claimed to have seen a, claimed to have seen an angel. Though all we have is their handwriting over a state, we have, uh, signatures of their names written in all of Cowdery's writing, by the way, not their own signatures to these testimonies. But look at these witnesses. The three witnesses are David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery. Let's start with David Whitmer. He later left the Mormon Church and he said in an address to all Christians, "God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to separate myself from among Latter-day Saints." If I found out one of the Apostles left Jesus after his resurrection, I'd be very nervous to hear that. But none of them did that. So we see there's a difference between the Bible and Mormonism. Second, there's Oliver Cowdery. He was a cousin of Joseph Smith. He was involved beforehand. He knew Smith. He claimed to have seen visions before he met Smith, and he also claimed that dowsing rods could speak to him. He also lived in the same city as Ethan Smith, the author of "View of the Hebrews," that may have served as a source of the Book of Mormon. Finally, there's Martin Harris. One of the primary translators. Harris mortgaged his farm to fund the publishing of the Book of Mormon, which means he had a huge financial motivation to convince people of its truthfulness. Multiple sources say, though he was incredibly superstitious. In 1842, John Clark said of Martin Harris, "Harris was ready to be duped by anything, no matter where he went. He saw visions and supernatural appearances." One time, he said he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one talks with another. Harris also admitted he only saw the plates with spiritual eyes. And some people left the church as a result of that. And Harris himself would say things that are contradictory, that he says, "Yes, I saw this like you see me." But he also said, "I saw the golden plates just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth." Early Mormons were part of a magical worldview that believed in things like second sight. So seeing things with a spiritual eye or a natural eye was sometimes seen as being the same thing. And we also have the other witnesses talking about only having seen it in a vision. David Whitmer said that the angel was something he did not see. It was an impression that he felt. Uh, so going forward, there's no conclusive proof that any of them saw something supernatural. Rather, they were primed to see or feel an angel when Joseph Smith prophesied it while translating and moved them to do that. As for the plates, in 1843, brass plates were unearthed in Kinderhook, Illinois. Smith claimed that they referred to an Egyptian descendant of Ham, but a blacksmith made them. They were a hoax. In 1845, James Strang, an early Mormon dissenter, claimed to have translated metal plates, and non-Mormons confirmed they existed, which never happened for the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris, one of

The original Book of Mormon Witnesses left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, left Joseph Smith's church, and became one of String's followers for a brief period. Jacob doesn't believe in James String's plates. He doesn't believe in the Kinderhook plates, and I don't believe in Joseph Smith's plates. And I'll address the other objections that Jacob raised in my next rebuttal. All right, thank you very much. We're now moving into second rebuttal of four minutes each. Uh, Jacob, whenever you want to begin.

Okay, I'll just read a couple of quotes about the character of these Witnesses. Let's talk for a minute about Martin Harris. E.B. Grandin said that Martin Harris was among the early settlers of Palmyra. He has ever borne the character of an honorable and upright man and a kind and benevolent neighbor. Had secured to himself an by honest integrity a respectable fortune. He has left a large circle of acquaintances and friends to pity his delusion. In other words, what E.B. Grandin was saying is that he was a super awesome guy. So we're kind of in shock that he ended up following this. This is actually a hostile witness who's testifying to his character. The reality is is that all of these quotes, if you actually look up the sources on them, they're all from people who hated Joseph and the church. And so they were out being the ones saying this. But when you actually look at the people who knew these Witnesses, I find a totally different story. I read, I highly recommend Richard Anderson's book on the Witnesses. Um, the same thing can be said about Oliver Cowdery. Um, the, uh, Ohio House of Representatives, John Bresson, he said of him, Mr. Cowdery was a citizen that none could have been more esteemed. His honesty, integrity, and industry were worthy of the imitation of all. All of the sources you will hear from the other people, these are all antagonistic, hateful witnesses to the church. So, um, and also saying they only saw under a cloth, that just shows that Trent does not know what he's talking about. They very clearly talked about it in the statements themselves that are in The Book of Mormon. You can see that they say that they handled the plates, they looked at the characters, like they were fully involved in it. But I am glad we're making progress here because Trent is recognizing that Joseph must have been some sort of a genius storyteller with an incredible imagination. But that's all just speculation. His own mother also said, which he didn't bring this up, that Joseph was less inclined to read books than any of her other children. Okay, Joseph's own wife. These people knew him best. So Joseph couldn't even write well. Word letter. And if you go read the actual letters written by Joseph Smith, you very quickly learn that this was not a highly literate and educated man. Everyone thought that Joseph Smith was a doofus, even his mom and his, and, and at least in educational wise, um, and, and the neighbors. Like, nobody disagreed. That's one of the reasons that people were so amazed by The Book of Mormon, especially those closest to him who knew him. Um, I am glad though that he did come up with the idea that he, after hearing all the evidence that I presented, that, well, maybe Joseph didn't actually write this. Maybe someone else did. Well, and who? Trent needs to come up with a plausible theory for where this book came from. We have the book, and the book is contrary to what he says. It's incredible. You have the thing is, the people like, uh, who just read on, kind of on a surface level, it sounds just like the atheists who read the Bible on a surface level and they're like, this is a bunch of superstitious weirdo nonsense from from a stone age group of people. Okay, that's the kind of people that Trent is quoting here. Okay. But people who actually study it deeply, like Harold Bloom, who's an atheist, is like, this guy's a genius. We got Pulitzer Prize winners saying that this book is among the greatest works of American literature. You can say a lot of things about The Book of Mormon, you can't say that it's simple or dumb. And it's hilarious because Trent brought up, and it came to pass, as some problem. What he doesn't realize is, and it came to pass, is actually a Hebraism because Hebrew didn't have punctuation. And so what they would do is they would use phrases like, and it came to pass, in order to break up different things. Those are, they're right, they are in the Bible. And they usually are in historical narratives in the Bible. And the Bible in the King James version has a lot of those actually taken out because they became so redundant. So the redundancy of that phrase is actually evidence of its Hebrew origins. Um, also, the fruits of Islam, I'm sorry, go and visit Muslim majority countries. The fruits of Islam are not comparable to the fruits of what Joseph has produced amongst the Latter-day Saints. Um, also, um, he brought up the last 116 pages. Well, here's a problem. If Joseph was had a manuscript somehow, last time. Oh, last time, you can wrap up. You said. Well, I'll just leave it at that. Okay.

All right, thank you very much. We are now going to take a very short break. And then when we come, I, a second, I am sorry. Gets another one. You have four minutes whenever you're ready.

All right, all right. So remember that Jacob is the one who has the burden of showing The Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. I do not have the burden of proving who exactly wrote it or who didn't. He is the one who is trying to prove that God must have been involved in the creation of this book, and I am saying he has not met that level of proof at all. So the evidence that he's given us, he said, oh, you're only quoting people that hate the church. That's not true. When David Whitmer said that he left the Mormon faith and he had wanted to have nothing to do with it, and God told him that, that's Whitmer's own word that I'm quoting. Or when I'm quoting Martin Harris, I'm quoting a test, an interview Harris gave in 1859. I'm quoting the actual people's words. And yes, people did say Harris and Cowdery were honest or good people, but you can be honest and be incredibly superstitious. And my point about Harris was that he was a visionary fanatic, is what people described of him, someone who saw spooks in the supernatural around every corner that he turned and was primed to see things that weren't there. So we have not been given good evidence, evidence that only God could have inspired this, based on the witnesses that are involved, rather than Joseph Smith himself or any other storyteller. Now, what it comes to Smith's ability to create a book, no, he, he wasn't good necessarily at writing, but you don't have to be a good writer to be a good storyteller. You can dictate things. For example, read History of the Church, dictated by Joseph Smith. It's a good history of his church, and he dictated it to scribes. We don't see a bumbling, illiterate person there. Why couldn't he dictate other things as well? Well, when I brought up the plural marriages, I brought, I didn't just bring up the first one. I didn't bring up sex, by the way. Jacob did. I just brought up the fact that he got multiple wives, which many false prophets have done throughout history. Um, but what I did bring up was that it really makes us question his honesty. And the people I brought up, I wasn't quoting lurid anti-Mormons. I quoted FAIR, a well-known Mormon apologetics organization, admitting that yes, Joseph wasn't entirely honest with his wife, that he had already been sealed to other women and then resealed to them, but didn't tell his wife this. Impugns his honesty. Oliver Cowdery himself, in a letter to his own brother, described Joseph's resealing with Fanny Alger, a 16-year-old housekeeper, as a dirty, nasty affair. That wasn't an enemy. That's Cowdery, though. Cowdery was excommunicated. All the witnesses were excommunicated. He came back to the church for just a few months, though, before he ended up dying. One of the greatest works of American literature? Have you read it? Do most professors, you know, have they read it? Do you know any? If you're a non-Mormon, do you know any stories from The Book of Mormon? If you're a non-Christian, do you know stories from the Bible? I bet you do. That should make you really question if it's one of the greatest works of American literature. When it comes to the argument from plagiarism, my point wasn't that merely there's plagiarism. My point was that the ancient authors who lived in fourth-century America were quoting from things like Paul's letter to the Corinthians, that they would not have had access to because they're descendants of people who left the Old World in 600 BC. It's not play, it's not just plagiarism, it's that they were plagiarizing from things they could not have possibly known about, like First Corinthians, or Alma 32's plagiarism of the Letter to the Hebrews. And they couldn't have known about that, but Joseph Smith could have, because he's responsible for coming up with the entire story, or whoever the author, whatever the argument may be. So the arguments weren't refuted. The zero archaeological evidence. Notice so far, Jacob has not disputed my point about the New World. This isn't like a few thousand people fleeing Egypt with disposable goods that might disappear in the desert. We're talking about over a thousand years, hundreds of thousands of people, building huge settlements, engaging in warfare with chariots and iron, all sorts of things in the New World. And Jacob has not disputed my point that there is zero archaeological evidence for that, which should give us good thinking that it didn't happen. Finally, as for the Catholic argument, it is not below my caliber. Both Jacob and I can confidently say the Quran is wrong about Jesus not being crucified because Christianity is true, and because Catholicism is true, Mormonism is false.

All right, so now, now we're going to have a quick break and come back for cross-examination, 15 minutes each, and then Q&A. Uh, do us a favor. If you're enjoying this debate, if you think it's substantive and fair, like the video, share the video, subscribe if you dare. And, um, feel free to put in super chats for the Q&A, but just realize that we may, we probably won't get to all of them. Okay. And with that, we'll go to the break. I want to tell you about Hallow, which is the number one downloaded prayer app in the world. It's outstanding. Hallow.com/mattr. Sign up over there right now, and you will get the first three months for free. That's like a lot of time. You can decide whether it's useful to you or not, whether it's helpful. If you don't like it, you can always quit. Hallow.com/mattr. I use it, my family uses it, it's fantastic. There are over 10,000 audio-guided prayers, meditations, and music, including my Hallow has been downloaded over 15 million times in 150 different countries. It helps you pray, helps you meditate, helps you sleep better, helps you build a daily routine and a habit of prayer. There's honestly so much excellent stuff on this app that it's difficult to get through it all. Just go check it out. Hallow.com/mattr. The link is in the description below. It even has an entire section for kids. So if you're a parent, you can play little Bible stories to them at night. It'll help them pray. Fantastic. Hallow.com. I want to tell you about a course that I have created for men to overcome pornography. It is called Strive21.com/mattr. You go there right now, or if you text strive to 66866, we'll send you the link. It's 100% free, and it's a course I've created to help men, to give them the tools to overcome pornography. Usually, men know that porn is wrong. They don't need me or you to convince them that it's wrong. What they need is a battle plan to get out. And so I've distilled all the I've learned over the last 15 or so years as I've been talking and writing on this topic into this one course. Think of it as if you and I could have a coffee over the next 21 days, and I would kind of guide you along this journey. That's basically what this is. It's incredibly well produced. Uh, we had a whole camera crew come and film this. And I think it'll be a really, a real help to you. And it's also not an isolated course that you go through on your own, because literally tens of thousands of men have now gone through this course. And as you go through the different videos, there's comments from men all around the world encouraging each other, offering to be each other's accountability partners and things like that. Strive21.com/mattr, or as I say, text, text strive to 66866 to get started today. You won't regret it, man. Have you checked out Exodus 90 lately? If you've heard of Exodus 90 before, you're probably thinking of cold showers and Lent. But the Exodus 9 app offers so much more. It's a daily companion to help you grow closer to God and to become the man you wanted to be. This summer, I'm following along with the app's daily scriptures, reflections, and prayers. It's awesome. On the app, you can join the Enthronement to the Sacred Heart, the Exodus 90 Summer Book Club, and St. Michael's Lent, which starts August 15th and leads up to the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel on September 29th. St. Michael's Lent is an ancient tradition of prayer and fasting popularized by St. Francis in the Middle Ages that's been lost in our time. Let's bring it back. Join the men of Exodus 90 and Father Carlos Martins, Catholic priest, exorcist, and host of The Exorcist Files, who will serve as our spiritual guide for St. Michael's Lent this year. On The Exodus 90 app, we will awaken to invisible realities and enter into the spiritual battle that rages around us all the time. Go to Exodus 90.com/mattr for a 14-day free trial to The Exodus 90 app and to learn more about St. Michael's Lent. That's Exodus 90/mattr to join us for St. Michael's Lent starting August 15th.

[Music]

Any sinner is capable of being a great saint, and any saint is also capable of being a great sinner. A great sinner. A great [Music] [Applause] [Music] The secret, therefore, of character development is the realization of this power. When we're back. Okay, we're back. Oh, we're back. Okay, good. All right, so we are going into a time of cross-examination. You tell me what y'all think. Here's what I like to think when with cross-examination, like, so you're going to take the first 15 minutes. Mhm. That means you are free to ask him questions, to direct the conversation wherever you want it to go, to even interrupt him if he's fumbling or being boring. Um, and that's not being rude, that's just part of the cross-examination, right? And then the same thing will happen for you. You're welcome to interrupt him, to interject, to lead the conversation. Does that sound good? Sounds great. That's good. Um, I know these are usually the most exciting parts of the debates, but I think it's really great that both of you had some time to lay out your, your main arguments. So, um, whenever you want, Jacob, you have 15 minutes.

Okay, let's get started. Um, so Trent, why does The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, correctly predict that King Zedekiah had a son named Mulek, if we didn't know that until the 20th century?

What people have discovered is that he had a son, his name was Mulok. It's not exactly Mulek. So there's a lot of things happen there where the Book of Mormon will create names, usually portmanteaus, like combinations of ancient names. For example, and they tend to line up with that. I'm sure you, you know, do you know the shortened version of that name is Mulek? Possible. Yeah. Okay.

Um, so next, why does The Book of Mormon have over a dozen authentic Hebrew names that were not discovered until long after Joseph Smith's death?

Well, Joseph Smith did have access to things like Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. There was also, what's your source on that? That's what scholars, scholars recognize that was something that had already been translated. That there's any, do you have any evidence that Joseph actually had that book? I don't need to have access, I don't need to have evidence that he possessed it, but if it's something that he could access within his own New York library, or for example, things like The Book of Enoch were all in 1825 in New York. That's a separate subject. Jewish literature that has names in it that was available in the time and place. And you have no evidence that Joseph had any of that, right? He lived in a context where it's available. Okay. All right. You concede. Do you concede the existence of chiasmus literary form in The Book of Mormon?

Chiasmus is something that appears in all kinds of literature. 17, 17 item chiasmus, you know, regularly appear. You were talking about Alma, the chiasmus in Alma 36. 17. Alma 36. Uh, and as I quoted, I quoted other scholars like Earl Wonderly, who are skeptical that it is a chiasmic structure, that you only get that by cherry-picking the data. Kind of. Do you think you might have a bias against, against Mormonism? No, I wouldn't say so. I think it's actually published in Dialogue, the Journal of Mormon Thought. Why does The Book of Mormon correctly predict over a dozen specific characteristics of a 20-mile stretch of coastline in the Dhofar region of Oman?

Because, even if I couldn't answer that question, that wouldn't prove that the book is divinely inspired. But just predicting things like roads go east or west, or that they'll have certain things that are similar to other elements in the desert or in the Old Testament, that's not very impressive. Do you, do you believe that the devil is pleased when people read The Book of Mormon?

Do I believe the devil is pleased when they read it? I don't know. If someone reads it and comes to see that it's meandering, that it's false, like, I'm not afraid of people choosing. Let me quote a verse from. Would you like me to finish my answer? Well, I think it's kind of filibustering. I'm just going to read a verse from the book of Second Nephi. But all right. That which is, this is from the, uh, 7. It says, that which is evil cometh of the devil, for the devil is an enemy unto God and invitetht and enticeth to sin and to do that which is evil. But behold, everything which inviteth and enticeth to do good and to love God and to serve him is inspired of God. Wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge, for everything which persuades to believe in Christ is sent forth by the gift and power of Christ. Does leading people towards Christ in order to to serve God sound like the kind of thing that the devil wants people to do?

I could say the same thing about the Whitmerites, the Shakers, all other kinds of 19th-century restorationist cults that make very similar claims to Mormons, but Mormons reject that. Also try to lead people to Christ. So works, it works for the Whitmerites and the Shakers. It doesn't work for The Book of Mormon. Is the devil the one that's causing Latter-day Saint temple marriages to be three to five times less likely to end in divorce?

No, it could just be basic elements of natural law that if you have very strong core values, your marriages tend to last long. Many arranged marriages and non-Christian lands, they get their values from The Book of Mormon. Do they get their? I'm sure that some of them do. But as I said, in non-Christian areas, in non-Christian parts of the world, arranged marriages last very long. That doesn't prove those Buddhist or Hindu cultures are true in their religious beliefs. Okay. Um, is it the devil that's causing Latter-day Saints to give seven times more volunteer service than your average American?

No, it's just a wonderful, robust tithing program. So I, I am of that, that you got, which the Bible itself doesn't command tithing, though. Okay. Um, is it the devil that's causing Latter-day Saints to know their Bibles better than almost any, well, better than every other major Christian group in the United States?

I'm sure they know it well. I know Jehovah's Witnesses that also know the Bible backwards and forwards. But as St. Jerome said, it's not the letter of scripture that matters, but its meaning. That's where Mormons fall flat. Got it. Um, why is it reasonable to believe that the Book of Exodus is inspired of God?

Because Jesus thought that it was, and His Church says that it is. Okay. So what is the, you have said that the most important evidence for the resurrection would be the claims that Jesus appeared in bodily form to groups of his disciples. So the most important evidence for the resurrection, and therefore Christianity and the Catholic Church, is the witness testimony of Jesus Christ's resurrection. Is that correct?

Correct. Not all witness testimony is equal, though. Okay. How many specific eyewitnesses left extant written accounts of the resurrection?

Uh, well, we would say that, you mean first-person accounts of it? Yeah. It's, I, witnesses who left extant written firsthand accounts of the resurrection. Well, of the moment of the resurrection, or the post-resurrection appearances? The moment of the resurrection. The moment of the resurrection happened in the tomb, and nobody was around. But that's inferred by seeing Christ post-resurrection. Include the post-resurrection. How many written extant accounts do we have from an eyewitness? Yes. Well, if you believe that it was John the Apostle, that would be one. Uh, other, the majority of scholars conclude the Gospel of John was written by John. Scholars don't. No, but the most important ones we have. We have Paul's letter to the Corinthians that records the appearances, and Paul had firsthand contact with those who had. No, he doesn't call it a vision. Oh, so, so it isn't a visionary experience. He said he wasn't sure if he was in the body or out of the body. He's talking about his appearance in the heavens, and he specifically says, "I do not know if it was in the body or out of the body." But he uses a Greek word, or that just means appeared to see. And he says in First Corinthians, "Have I not seen the Lord?" He speaks about it in a normal way, which is very different from the Book of Mormon witnesses that repeatedly say they saw it in a vision or a trance. And so how many total people left firsthand eyewitness accounts of the resurrection? Can you give me a number? I just want a number of that, that they, of that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Is it more than three?

I wouldn't say that it's probably not more than three. But I, but I would, but I would rather have reliable secondhand accounts in the New Testament than the unreliable ones for the Book of Mormon. So you have three, maybe accounts. But how many people left firsthand accounts of the gold plates? Like, how, give me a number. Like, left firsthand accounts. Yeah, yeah. How many people left firsthand accounts that they had seen the gold plates?

All I, that they, oh, that they had seen the plates. Yes. I think, I don't know, there could be about a dozen people who said they saw something like this. But that doesn't mean that it's a divinely inspired artifact. Okay. Now, when it comes to the witnesses, the three witnesses and the eight witnesses, technically we only have signatures to statements, all of which were written by Oliver Cowdery. None of the men actually signed it. That's. But here's the thing. That's actually, that was just Cowdery. They all testified later in their life that they had seen the gold plates outside of what Cowdery wrote. Cowdery was just providing the printer's manuscript to actually publish it. So that's just a bad argument. The other thing, but here, here's the thing though. You have, um, why, here's a firsthand eyewitness statement from David Whitmer shortly before his death in 1887. He said, quote, "I wish now, standing as it were in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, for once in all to make this public statement that I have never at any time denied my testimony or any part thereof, which has so long been published in The Book of Mormon. I also testify to the world that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of The Book of Mormon. Oliver's last words to me were, quote, Brother David, be true to your testimony of the of the Book of Mormon." Okay. Now, do you have any extant firsthand signed statements like this for the resurrection? Yes or no?

No, we don't have that. Okay. Why would David Whitmer make a statement like that after leaving the church, believing that Joseph Smith was a false prophet?

He made that statement because he had given a previous interview where he said, as I quoted, where he said that the angel, he did not see the appearance or shape of the angel. He felt an impression. And then when that caused an outcry, he clarified that. But what's interesting, what's the, what's the source of that, that quote that you just gave? He was, he was giving an interview, uh, with, here, I can, I can bring it up here if you like. Um, see, uh, but I do know he also said in his own word, address, in his own, in his own address to all Christians, he said that God spoke to me again by his own voice and told me to separate myself from the Latter-day Saints. So, so it's true that David Whitmer did have a falling out with Joseph Smith over the failure of, uh, a financial failure that happened, and he felt that Joseph should have known better. But he never denied his testimony. It was an interview with John Murphy, dated in 1880, when Whitmer said that. And then later he clarified it. John, did you, that the statement I just read was in response to what Murphy had claimed that he had said? He said that he, David Whitmer, actually came out and said, Murphy is lying, I didn't say that. No, he said that he never denied. He said that he never, no, he said that he never denied his testimony. He said that he never, no, he said that he never denied his testimony. But his testimony is that he felt an impression of the angel, not that he beheld it. He never denied that part. He just said, I never denied my testimonies. Mormon testimonies, the natural and spiritual eye. So David Whitmer said this. Someone accused him of being hallucinated. He said, no, sir, I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived. I saw with these eyes, I heard with these ears. I know of which I speak. Everything was as natural to us as it is at any time. In other words, the, um, it's, it's simply, you're relying on sources. I want everyone to know this. He's relying on sources that are enemies of the church that wanted to try and make it seem like they had contradicted their testimony. Now, to go on, do you think it's plausible that Joseph Smith did indeed have plates of some kind, some sort of a metal object? Yeah, similar to how the Kinderhook plates existed. So you think it's plausible? Can I, can I finish? Similar to how the Kinderhook plates existed, and those were a hoax, or James String had the Voree plates, he could have had plates like that. The, okay. So first of all, Joseph, all of those things are hearsay accounts of what people said that Joseph said. Okay. You have no statement from Joseph Smith saying that he had confirmed that any of those things were his own scribe, who said that he, William Clay. It was his own scribe who said that he saw that. Someone said that he said. These are secondhand accounts. Now, do, now you said that you think it's plausible that he did. My question is, why is it more likely than not that's what plausible means? Why is it more likely than not that Joseph had those? Let me be clear. Those plates existed. You were referencing whether Joseph Smith attempted to translate the Kinderhook plates. Your original question was, do I think that there were plates? There certainly could have been, just like there were the Kinderhook plates. I'm asking if it's plausible. Do you think it's plausible, more likely than not, that Joseph had metal plates of some kind?

I think it's plausible he had some kind of an object. People often testified there was there. People said they saw an object. So the witnesses, you think that there's, you think that the witnesses are reliable to say that it is reliable that he had something? You just deny that what he had actually contained the plates? No, I deny that what he had were 550 pages worth of information transcribed onto 40 golden plates in a language called Reformed Egyptian that never existed in the history of the world. So you don't, you don't have the, there were never any statements of exactly how many plates that there were. And also, if you're going to say that he forged metal plates, where's, do you have any evidence that he forged metal plates? Is there anything in the historical record showing that he actually had the ability to do that, the resources, any of it? No. But that's not my job to prove whether he did or didn't do that. The fact is, there are many different hypotheses. And so if we have one hypothesis that God preserved D plates that actually have information that couldn't have been contained on them in a language that didn't exist, or there were artifacts similar to other fake metal artifacts that did exist at the time, that seems more likely to me. Okay. So why did Oliver Cowdery say the following on his deathbed? "It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind. It was real."

Because the Mormon, the early Mormons of that time, and you could read Michael Quinn's book, Mormonism and the Magical Worldview, what they say is, whether something is real is something where the natural eye and the spiritual eye come together. So, for example, in the testimony of the three witnesses, it says that they saw the plates by the power of God, which is weird because I can see. Let me finish. I can see these without the power of God. That makes me seem like it's something a bit more. Eight witnesses say that they saw it by the power of God. I'd have to go back to their, their testimony of it. Okay. John Whitmer was one of the eight witnesses. And before his death, he was asked the following question about the rumor that they had only seen it under a cloth or or in a vision. In a newspaper article, asked John Whitmer directly. He said, quote, "He asked him, did you see it under the plates?" And John said, quote, "No, Joseph handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us." Why should we believe you over the actual witnesses?

You wouldn't have to disbelieve me. There could be plates like Kinderhook, of which you turn and you look at, but they're not actually ancient plates. But you have no evidence of Joseph committing metallurgical fraud. No, I don't need that because there were other people committing metallurgical fraud. And just like you have no evidence that they contained a Reformed Egyptian writing or had any, any of these documents on them, it could have been someone else, or he could have done that through someone else. Just be, I don't have to provide a complete alternative account. All I have to say is that this miraculous account is severely lacking in evidence. Contradicting. They risked their lives to to keep those testimonies, to say those things. Who, Joseph Smith's witnesses?

Well, I know that Joseph Smith was certainly risking his life because the Illinois authorities were certainly. What about the extermination order on Mormons in Missouri? And, uh, can I finish, please? Well, many religious. Here's the issue. Many religious people risk their lives living out their faith. So we're talking about the original witnesses here, and whether someone risks their life shows evidence of their sincerity, or at least their at least their commitment. And I will say that Joseph Smith was certainly committed to try to keep this going, hopefully at least to maybe, you know, tell his presidential election was over, so that's time. And so, Trent, you can begin with 15 minutes whenever you're ready.

All right, take your time. Okay, let me see here. All righty. My stopwatch. Okay, so let's talk about a few areas that I brought up. I want to talk about Book of Mormon geography. Uh, do scholars, secular and religious, agree that the events in the Gospels took place within the area we now call modern-day Israel and Palestine?

Yes. Okay. Do Mormon scholars agree on an area of similar size being the location of where the events of The Book of Mormon took place in the New World?

Uh, yes, I would say that most of the, the reputable scholars in the Latter-day Saint community, uh, lean towards it happening in the Mesoamerica area. So you believe a Mormon scholar that defends the Heartland model and says it took place around the Great Lakes is not a reputable scholar?

Not in my opinion. Well, I, I don't find their arguments compelling. Are they reputable scholars? Depends on the scholar. Could there be some, possibly? But there, there's reputable scholars that believe kind of things that are really weird and out there. All righty. Uh, while artifacts like the name of Israel being found on the Merneptah Stele have been discovered in the Old World, have any artifacts with Book of Mormon names ever been discovered in the New World? In the New World? In the New World, the Americas?

Um, no. But that's, that's kind of a, a bad example because, first of all, in like, when you're doing, when you're searching for things in Egypt, like, we know the exact location where all those things happened, and so it's easier to find out. Also, the archaeology. Do we not know the exact location where The Book of Mormon events took place? We don't know the exact location. I think that there are very plausible models for Mesoamerica. But here's the issue. So I would quote, um, the non-Mormon scholar Edwin Barnhart, who says that less than 1% of Mesoamerica has been professionally surveyed and studied, especially in the jungle areas. So it's like saying, well, your son looked in the closet in your house for your, he didn't find them, therefore they're not in the house. Would you agree that the vast majority of the Old World contains sites that haven't been investigated yet? For example, we only found the Dead Sea Scrolls about 70 years ago. So there's lots of areas of the Old World that haven't been explored yet. Correct?

Sure. But you're talking about five, you're talking about when you're talking about Egypt, it's the most archaeologically studied area on planet Earth. I'm talking about other, the Levant region, Saudi Arabia, yeah. Those are those are. And they also, climate-wise, totally different. You're talking about a. Here's my next question. Has any artifact with Hebrew or Egyptian text been discovered in the New World?

There have been some that people claim have been. I'm not familiar enough with those if they're authentic or not. Exactly. But there have been claims that there have been. And also the language in The Book of Mormon, specifically, it talks about the fact that the language that they brought over was corrupted. And so the eventual language that was used by The Book of Mormon people was not like, they weren't speaking Reformed Egyptian in in Mesoamerica. They probably adopted the language of the peoples that were here. Peoples that were here. Let's talk about that actually. Sure. All right. Was Joseph Smith wrong when he said, "Our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph which was sold into Egypt," even though 99.5% of Native American DNA comes from Asia, not the Middle East?

Yeah, he may have been mistaken in that statement. Uh, because Joseph Smith didn't ever claim that he knew exactly where The Book of Mormon happened. He himself, which I think is evidence of of his authenticity, was trying to figure out where did exactly did these things happen. And Joseph had expressed both the possibility of happening in in the heartland of America, but he also expressed that it might have happened in other places like Central America. Did Smith ever refer to Native Americans or corpses or skeletons of Native Americans as Lamanites?

Yeah, they, they had thought that it might be. But none of those were like revealed statements. I don't claim infallibility of Joseph Smith. And not only that, if, if you're going to hold that standard, well, an atheist could turn to a Christian and be like, well, do you agree with the statement of so and so past Pope who said things that obviously were false? Like, I think that there's a, there's a difference there. And not everything that Joseph said was claimed to be some prophetic infallible statement. So you're saying that, would you agree that it was a traditional view among Mormons that Native Americans in the New World, that they were the, they were primarily the descendants of the Lamanites?

Yeah, but the, the Book of Mormon text itself, it's interesting. So in Jacob 1:14, it says, "But I, Jacob, shall not hear hereafter distinguish between these names," meaning the names of different groups that he encountered, "but I shall call them Lamanites, those who seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi, I will call Nephites." So what he was doing was setting up a very common thing in the ancient world was to call everyone of one group. Like the Greeks, they said, we're the Greeks, everyone else is barbarians. The Jews said, well, we are Jews, everyone else is Gentiles. Does The Book of Mormon, so does it refer to other groups specific groups who inhabited the Americas before the arrival of Jared, Lehi, and Mormon?

While it does not, that's not surprising in ethnocentric ancient histories, which often would simply lump everyone, just as Jacob did, into an entire other group. Like Jews calling everyone else Gentiles, and Jacob calling everyone either Nephite or the outsiders, the Lamanites. Also, Iran. You have Iran. And is it understandable someone reading The Book of Mormon would reach the conclusion that the population of the Americas were only descendants of people that had come from the Old World through Jared, Lehi, and Mormon?

A careful study of, and it wasn't Mormon, I think I said Mormon. Sorry, Mulek. It's hard. It's very easy to come up with new names from the older words. All right. Well, um, so someone who reads it carefully, that you do not have to draw that conclusion from the text at all. So it sounds like what you're saying, though, is that there is no specific archaeological evidence of distinctly Book of Mormon names in the New World?

We don't know almost any of the names. We don't know the names that these cities that they're discovering. If you're familiar with the LiDAR studies they're doing, they literally earlier this year found an entire 650-mile area that was under the jungle that the jungle has consumed. We don't know what those cities were named. Okay. But we have found the names of some settlements. Like we found Kokia, and we know that that's the name of that settlement. That was the name of that settlement anciently. Okay. In, in 2000, or in, or in 500 BC. Okay. So using a skeptical argument there? No, I'm using the same argument that the, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, which is the exact same argument that Jimmy Akin and you guys make about the Book of Exodus. You seem very confident about that one Old World site that we do know that's what they called it back then, that it, because we have records that we, we found the actual, um, the temple altars that had the name on it that date to that period. Let's go ahead. Talk about the golden plates. All right. Uh, so however many plates there were, here you say, let's say maybe there's like, what, 60? 80? Mhm. There's certainly more. 500 here. Mhm. All right. Well, I, I would say we don't know what the thickness of the plates were exactly from the descriptions that the eyewitnesses left. It was like tin, they said it was, it was like it was like thick paper is what they described it as. Okay. So they were very thin plates, first of all. Second of all, those witnesses, it's funny, now you're believing what they were saying. Yeah. I want to. It seems implausible to me. So, so you're agreeing they had plates? Okay. So are you familiar with, I referenced the plates, the metal plates of Darius? Yeah. Okay. And how many, how many English words are contained on one of the metal plates of Darius?

I, I'm not familiar with the details of how many there are. Are you familiar that the plate, each plate contains about 200 English words on it?

Uh, I, I don't know. I, fine. I'm not going to disagree with that. Okay. So if that were the case, uh, in order, let's say there were, you know, 60, 80 plates here, you'd have to have thousands of words on each of these plates. So each of these characters would have to represent what, 50 or 80 words in order to fit on these plates, correct?

Um, I don't know exactly. I can't make that prediction because I don't know anything about this language that, that it's coming from. I also don't know if it's a dynamic translation, which you talk about, which is where you take a that might be smaller and then you expound upon. When Joseph looked in the hat, Mhm. Cowdery said that he saw words that appeared and he read them off, and then new words would appear. I guess what did Smith see in the hat when he was trying? Now, you, he wasn't looking at the plates, right? Uh, he was, he was looking in the hat. Yeah. And what did he see in the hat?

Well, according to, according to the, the witnesses of of the translation process. Okay. So what did he see in the hat? We don't know. Okay. We had people who said that they think that they might have known, and they gave accounts of what they thought was going on. But exactly what was going on in that, we don't know. Okay. So if there's 50 pages here, or you know, whatever that might be, and you're going to have 270,000 English words just fit on this, in characters, each of these characters would have to contain 50 or 80 words, like several paragraphs of meaning for each character, if it's translated. Is there any hieroglyphic text that is like that that we know of, where the hieroglyph represents, let's say, 50 words of information?

Know what the original language was or how it worked, or if it was an expansion given through revelation from God to expand ideas that were already in there. May have had nothing to do with it. Absolutely not. What I'm saying is, is that, for instance, I would reference you to the scholar Blake Ostler and his expansion theory, the idea that some of these texts could have been expanded to give the account, while the while the basic story outline is there in some way. It could be expanded. So I don't have a problem with that, and that's a dynamic translation that you talk about in your videos. But when I make a dynamic translation of scripture, I'm not adding 40 words or 50 words to one Greek word in the New Testament. That's where you get things that are not even translation at all. They're just dictations. All right, let's. Well, the text, the text was Reformed Egyptian, correct? Whatever that, that's what they called it. Joseph was not an expert in languages. And so he didn't. Oh, that's true. He didn't know that. Which is great. Which is wild, cuz someone who wasn't an expert in languages was able to come up with authentic names. So has any copy of the text on the alleged golden plates, have any copies of the characters survived to this day so that we can examine?

So there is a disputed one that scholars dispute called the characters document, which is something that again, it is a, it is a scholar, the characters document based on writing on the golden plates that was shown to a classicist named Charles Anthon. We don't know if that document is a document that was used. Okay. But do people say that it's based on? Anthon did Martin Harris present copies of the characters to Anthon? Yes. So let me, no, you had a lot of fun interrupting. I'm gonna do mine now. Okay. Did Anthon say, after he met Harris, describe from Anthon, did he, firsthand account, call the letters mere trash?

So here is what Anthon did. Martin Harris was very skeptical of Joseph Smith, so he took the characters to Anthon. And then when he came back from Anthon, Martin Harris was more convinced than ever. No, I'm asking you, what did Anthon say? What did, later in life, in the late 1830s, Mormonism starts to kick off and people go.

Okay, my stopwatch. Okay, so let's talk about a few areas that I brought up. I want to talk about Book of Mormon geography. Uh, do scholars, secular and religious, agree that the events in the Gospels took place within the area we now call modern-day Israel and Palestine?

Yes. Okay. Do Mormon scholars agree on an area of similar size being the location of where the events of The Book of Mormon took place in the New World?

Uh, yes, I would say that most of the, the reputable scholars in the Latter-day Saint community, uh, lean towards it happening in the Mesoamerica area. So you believe a Mormon scholar that defends the Heartland model and says it took place around the Great Lakes is not a reputable scholar?

Not in my opinion. Well, I, I don't find their arguments compelling. Are they reputable scholars? Depends on the scholar. Could there be some, possibly? But there, there's reputable scholars that believe kind of things that are really weird and out there. All righty. Uh, while artifacts like the name of Israel being found on the Merneptah Stele have been discovered in the Old World, have any artifacts with Book of Mormon names ever been discovered in the New World? In the New World? In the New World, the Americas?

Um, no. But that's, that's kind of a, a bad example because, first of all, in like, when you're doing, when you're searching for things in Egypt, like, we know the exact location where all those things happened, and so it's easier to find out. Also, the archaeology. Do we not know the exact location where The Book of Mormon events took place? We don't know the exact location. I think that there are very plausible models for Mesoamerica. But here's the issue. So I would quote, um, the non-Mormon scholar Edwin Barnhart, who says that less than 1% of Mesoamerica has been professionally surveyed and studied, especially in the jungle areas. So it's like saying, well, your son looked in the closet in your house for your, he didn't find them, therefore they're not in the house. Would you agree that the vast majority of the Old World contains sites that haven't been investigated yet? For example, we only found the Dead Sea Scrolls about 70 years ago. So there's lots of areas of the Old World that haven't been explored yet. Correct?

Sure. But you're talking about five, you're talking about when you're talking about Egypt, it's the most archaeologically studied area on planet Earth. I'm talking about other, the Levant region, Saudi Arabia, yeah. Those are those are. And they also, climate-wise, totally different. You're talking about a. Here's my next question. Has any artifact with Hebrew or Egyptian text been discovered in the New World?

There have been some that people claim have been. I'm not familiar enough with those if they're authentic or not. Exactly. But there have been claims that there have been. And also the language in The Book of Mormon, specifically, it talks about the fact that the language that they brought over was corrupted. And so the eventual language that was used by The Book of Mormon people was not like, they weren't speaking Reformed Egyptian in in Mesoamerica. They probably adopted the language of the peoples that were here. Peoples that were here. Let's talk about that actually. Sure. All right. Was Joseph Smith wrong when he said, "Our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph which was sold into Egypt," even though 99.5% of Native American DNA comes from Asia, not the Middle East?

Yeah, he may have been mistaken in that statement. Uh, because Joseph Smith didn't ever claim that he knew exactly where The Book of Mormon happened. He himself, which I think is evidence of of his authenticity, was trying to figure out where did exactly did these things happen. And Joseph had expressed both the possibility of happening in in the heartland of America, but he also expressed that it might have happened in other places like Central America. Did Smith ever refer to Native Americans or corpses or skeletons of Native Americans as Lamanites?

Yeah, they, they had thought that it might be. But none of those were like revealed statements. I don't claim infallibility of Joseph Smith. And not only that, if, if you're going to hold that standard, well, an atheist could turn to a Christian and be like, well, do you agree with the statement of so and so past Pope who said things that obviously were false? Like, I think that there's a, there's a difference there. And not everything that Joseph said was claimed to be some prophetic infallible statement. So you're saying that, would you agree that it was a traditional view among Mormons that Native Americans in the New World, that they were the, they were primarily the descendants of the Lamanites?

Yeah, but the, the Book of Mormon text itself, it's interesting. So in Jacob 1:14, it says, "But I, Jacob, shall not hear hereafter distinguish between these names," meaning the names of different groups that he encountered, "but I shall call them Lamanites, those who seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi, I will call Nephites." So what he was doing was setting up a very common thing in the ancient world was to call everyone of one group. Like the Greeks, they said, we're the Greeks, everyone else is barbarians. The Jews said, well, we are Jews, everyone else is Gentiles. Does The Book of Mormon, so does it refer to other groups specific groups who inhabited the Americas before the arrival of Jared, Lehi, and Mormon?

While it does not, that's not surprising in ethnocentric ancient histories, which often would simply lump everyone, just as Jacob did, into an entire other group. Like Jews calling everyone else Gentiles, and Jacob calling everyone either Nephite or the outsiders, the Lamanites. Also, Iran. You have Iran. And is it understandable someone reading The Book of Mormon would reach the conclusion that the population of the Americas were only descendants of people that had come from the Old World through Jared, Lehi, and Mormon?

A careful study of, and it wasn't Mormon, I think I said Mormon. Sorry, Mulek. It's hard. It's very easy to come up with new names from the older words. All right. Well, um, so someone who reads it carefully, that you do not have to draw that conclusion from the text at all. So it sounds like what you're saying, though, is that there is no specific archaeological evidence of distinctly Book of Mormon names in the New World?

We don't know almost any of the names. We don't know the names that these cities that they're discovering. If you're familiar with the LiDAR studies they're doing, they literally earlier this year found an entire 650-mile area that was under the jungle that the jungle has consumed. We don't know what those cities were named. Okay. But we have found the names of some settlements. Like we found Kokia, and we know that that's the name of that settlement. That was the name of that settlement anciently. Okay. In, in 2000, or in, or in 500 BC. Okay. So using a skeptical argument there? No, I'm using the same argument that the, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, which is the exact same argument that Jimmy Akin and you guys make about the Book of Exodus. You seem very confident about that one Old World site that we do know that's what they called it back then, that it, because we have records that we, we found the actual, um, the temple altars that had the name on it that date to that period. Let's go ahead. Talk about the golden plates. All right. Uh, so however many plates there were, here you say, let's say maybe there's like, what, 60? 80? Mhm. There's certainly more. 500 here. Mhm. All right. Well, I, I would say we don't know what the thickness of the plates were exactly from the descriptions that the eyewitnesses left. It was like tin, they said it was, it was like it was like thick paper is what they described it as. Okay. So they were very thin plates, first of all. Second of all, those witnesses, it's funny, now you're believing what they were saying. Yeah. I want to. It seems implausible to me. So, so you're agreeing they had plates? Okay. So are you familiar with, I referenced the plates, the metal plates of Darius? Yeah. Okay. And how many, how many English words are contained on one of the metal plates of Darius?

I, I'm not familiar with the details of how many there are. Are you familiar that the plate, each plate contains about 200 English words on it?

Uh, I, I don't know. I, fine. I'm not going to disagree with that. Okay. So if that were the case, uh, in order, let's say there were, you know, 60, 80 plates here, you'd have to have thousands of words on each of these plates. So each of these characters would have to represent what, 50 or 80 words in order to fit on these plates, correct?

Um, I don't know exactly. I can't make that prediction because I don't know anything about this language that, that it's coming from. I also don't know if it's a dynamic translation, which you talk about, which is where you take a that might be smaller and then you expound upon. When Joseph looked in the hat, Mhm. Cowdery said that he saw words that appeared and he read them off, and then new words would appear. I guess what did Smith see in the hat when he was trying? Now, you, he wasn't looking at the plates, right? Uh, he was, he was looking in the hat. Yeah. And what did he see in the hat?

Well, according to, according to the, the witnesses of of the translation process. Okay. So what did he see in the hat? We don't know. Okay. We had people who said that they think that they might have known, and they gave accounts of what they thought was going on. But exactly what was going on in that, we don't know. Okay. So if there's 50 pages here, or you know, whatever that might be, and you're going to have 270,000 English words just fit on this, in characters, each of these characters would have to contain 50 or 80 words, like several paragraphs of meaning for each character, if it's translated. Is there any hieroglyphic text that is like that that we know of, where the hieroglyph represents, let's say, 50 words of information?

Know what the original language was or how it worked, or if it was an expansion given through revelation from God to expand ideas that were already in there. May have had nothing to do with it. Absolutely not. What I'm saying is, is that, for instance, I would reference you to the scholar Blake Ostler and his expansion theory, the idea that some of these texts could have been expanded to give the account, while the while the basic story outline is there in some way. It could be expanded. So I don't have a problem with that, and that's a dynamic translation that you talk about in your videos. But when I make a dynamic translation of scripture, I'm not adding 40 words or 50 words to one Greek word in the New Testament. That's where you get things that are not even translation at all. They're just dictations. All right, let's. Well, the text, the text was Reformed Egyptian, correct? Whatever that, that's what they called it. Joseph was not an expert in languages. And so he didn't. Oh, that's true. He didn't know that. Which is great. Which is wild, cuz someone who wasn't an expert in languages was able to come up with authentic names. So has any copy of the text on the alleged golden plates, have any copies of the characters survived to this day so that we can examine?

So there is a disputed one that scholars dispute called the characters document, which is something that again, it is a, it is a scholar, the characters document based on writing on the golden plates that was shown to a classicist named Charles Anthon. We don't know if that document is a document that was used. Okay. But do people say that it's based on? Anthon did Martin Harris present copies of the characters to Anthon? Yes. So let me, no, you had a lot of fun interrupting. I'm gonna do mine now. Okay. Did Anthon say, after he met Harris, describe from Anthon, did he, firsthand account, call the letters mere trash?

So here is what Anthon did. Martin Harris was very skeptical of Joseph Smith, so he took the characters to Anthon. And then when he came back from Anthon, Martin Harris was more convinced than ever. No, I'm asking you, what did Anthon say? What did, later in life, in the late 1830s, Mormonism starts to kick off and people go.

Anthony Martin saying that you verified this and he goes, "No, I didn't. No, I I said it was trash because at that time Mormonism was already going." But if you actually go back, you have to wonder, why would Martin Harris take this to a scholar? Why would Joseph take it to a scholar?

So you're saying Anthon's just lying about what happened? Yeah. Okay. Is it possible that Harris lied because he was financially stressed about mortgaging his own farm and that if the Book of Mormon failed, he would be in financial ruin? He, is it, is it possible? No, no, no. It's not possible. Here's what I'm saying, Trent. He went to a scholar before he mortgaged the farm. It's after the scholar said what he said to him that he went and mortgaged the farm. That he was worried he was going to be duped? You, you are misreading Martin Harris if you think that he was some dupe. He was trying, he did multiple things to test Joseph, including putting a different stone in his hat, 'cause they said he was translating from a stone. And, and, and Joseph looked and said, "I can't translate this."

Is it possible that Smith realized it was a different stone? It's possible. Possible. Possibility is such a, a ridiculous standard. It's possible there are unicorns. There are unicorns on Mars somewhere. It's possible. Is it Poss? I'm familiar with this trick that Harris thinks he's clever. He switches the seer stone and then, and then Smith says, "Oh, I can't translate anymore." Is it possible Smith saw the stone was different and recognized he was being tested? It's possible. What does it show? It shows a skepticism in Martin Harris. He was not a dupe. He was very skeptical. And it was after a bunch of things happened. He, or is it possible Harris was trying to please his wife and other family members who were the skeptical ones, giving him pressure? Is that possible? It's possible. But regardless, he went to Anthon and came back more convinced than ever.

Okay, uh, let's, let's see here. Um, uh, Martin Harris gave an 1859 interview, uh, in Tiffany's magazine, and he recounted when Joseph Smith and his company went money digging once. And he said that one of the men told him that there was, when they went money digging, all kinds of strange things would happen. That like a large man who appeared to be eight or nine feet tall came and sat on the ridge of a barn and told them to leave. Who, who are you talking about? Who, who gave this quote? Harris gave that. He gave that in an interview related to what? One of the men who was with Smith when they were, when they were money. Was Smith involved in money digging, treasure hunting? It was a, so Joseph was from an indigent, poor family, and they were offered, basically, like work to help someone named, I think it was Josiah Stole, to go and look for a treasure that he had heard about. And so Joseph Smith was involved in that venture. Joseph was a teenager at the time. I mean, I've done some, done things as a teenager. I think you guys have too. And he later said that he kind of regretted it and he felt dumb about it.

Okay. And, and I'm saying the 1859 interview in Tiffany that Martin Harris gave, he said the men encountered a nine-foot-tall being that told them to leave when they were out treasure hunting. Do you think that happened? I'm not familiar with that source. I would recommend you look into it. It makes me feel like Martin Harris is a, a bit gullible. It's a good thing though that we're not just relying on Martin Harris. We have plenty of other witnesses as well. Okay. Uh, but, uh, were all of the witnesses, were excommunicated? And one of them, Cowdery, returned to the church? Uh, no. Martin Harris also did. And also, um, did Martin Harris join? How many? He went and followed the Bightes out to Utah, died in Utah. How many religions did Martin Harris belong to in his life? Quite a few. But he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon. The reality is is that these guys had falling out with Joseph Smith, which is all the more reason to believe them because they had every incentive to. Whitmer said, "God spoke to me by his own voice from the heavens and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints." Do you think God told David Whitmer that? Do you want to answer that, and then we'll go? Yeah, absolutely.

So David Whitmer was at that time very, very upset with Joseph. He was, and he had believed that Joseph was a fallen prophet. And so he was angry, and he made that statement. But lat, but he never denied his testimony. Book of. So you don't believe God, God didn't tell Whitmer to leave? No. Okay. So you don't believe Whitmer when he said that? You believe Whitmer on other things? Yeah. Is that time? That is time. Yeah, right. All right, thanks, guys. That was really great. Very vigorous. Awesome. Okay, we're going to move into a time of Q&A from the audience. It's going to be 30 minutes overall. The way I'd like to try to do this is to direct a question to each of you respectively. The, the person who's directed the question will have about two, two minutes to respond, and then the other person will only have one minute to respond to his response. This is really tough to do because I know that there's a lot you want to say. I mean, if it does divulge into the, the two of you going back and forth, um, devolve, I should say, then, uh, then, then maybe we want to not, not do Q&A and just do a conversation. That, that's up to you. So I'm going to click start, and we're going to go back and forth from local supporters to, uh, to YouTube questions. Connor Michael Brewster says, and this is directed to you, Jacob, if Mormons still have divine revelation, how do they justify the repeated back and forth on blacks in the clergy?

Well, first of all, I'm not sure what that question has to do with the Book of Mormon. Um, it's more of a general question about Mormons. We read it one more time, just I want to sure. Um, let me, I, I'll restart the time here. Let's, uh, oh, stop it. So you have plenty of time to respond. If Mormons still have divine revelation, how do they justify the repeated back and forth on blacks in the clergy? Well, the blacks in the priesthood issue was only, uh, it never was given by divine revelation ever as any sort of official canonized thing. Uh, so, I, I think he's just misunderstanding what exactly that was. Um, ultimately, you know, it's, it's something that I personally, and there's different opinions about why this all happened. And that my personal take on it is that it was a mistake. It was an error in policy. Uh, because we believe our leaders are fallible. I think Catholics probably believe that as well, that that things can be mistaken. Um, you know, if the Franciscans could own slaves in, uh, Brazil, then we'll, uh, I think the Catholics can maybe pardon if a mistake was ever made, uh, with, with us. Well, I'm, I'm glad that, uh, Jacob says that, but I believe there are deeper issues about the, that it wasn't an arbitrary decision of prohibiting blacks from entering the priesthood. It comes from very concerning issues. I recommend people to look into about the nature of the Nephites and the Lamanites and the Book of Mormon and the traditional view that Mormons held that the Native Americans were, were descendants of the Lamanites, the cursing of dark skin. It's something I would just encourage you to look into.

All right. Okay. We have a question here for Trent from Marty Staik. What makes the Catholic faith less outlandish than the LDS, especially when it comes to things like Marian apparitions or all the supernatural things with Padre Pio? We know where it happened. Uh, we have direct archaeological evidence, like we have, for example, the, the pilot stone that has Pontius Pilate's name on it. We have ancient manuscripts going back thousands of years to attest to these events. We're not proposing things happened in Israel that couldn't possibly have happened or the existence of civilizations for which there's no evidence for. So Catholicism is quite different in that we are actually, we are not proposing nearly as much as Mormonism does and doesn't have evidence to support it. We have far more ancient, uh, groundings for the belief. We're not just taking somebody's word in 1830 talking about something that happened thousands of years later. We have manuscripts going back to the second century, and we have churches that were founded from the beginning of the time of the Apostles attesting to the basic beliefs and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And we have the initial event witnessing Christ's resurrection is not a mere visionary experience. We have tactile encounters. People who were not expecting it because you didn't expect a deci, a Messiah to die and rise again. And of course, we have an empty tomb where if you really thought your Rabbi had come back from the dead, you can go and check out and see. No, this is an actual bodily resurrection. We have an abundance of more evidence for Christianity and far fewer, really no problems compared to what Mormonism faces. So, I, I believe the two are vastly different. So it's funny because the eyewitnesses that he's talking about, he doesn't have actual eyewitness accounts. He has later documents that are found that were written anonymously decades and decades after the event. Uh, and the nearest manuscripts of those are like a hundred years old. Um, and that's just for the New Testament stuff. When it comes to the witnesses, we have more witnesses. We have better witnesses as far as the numbers. Um, and then in addition to that, he, he says like, oh, well, there isn't any archaeological evidence. Well, Trent believes in the divine inspiration of the book of Exodus. The fact that we know where it happened and we don't find armies at the bottom of the Red Sea. Okay.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for Trent from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Connor Michael Brewster asks you, Jacob, if the church was corrupted and it took until Joseph Smith to restore it, why is the King James version of the Bible to be trusted from 1601, which is well before Smith? Again, this is based on a misconception. We do believe that. I'm a big fan of the Catholic Church. Like, I, I went to Catholic schools. I'm sending my kids to Catholic schools. I believe that the Christian movement and denominations and all of that, that they did continue to preach the truth, to share on the words of the people who held, uh, apostolic and prophetic authority in the past. And so, of course, we're going to, we're going to adopt that. And our belief is is that these good Christian churches, like you guys, see the difference? You guys look at me and you go, Jacob Hansen is going to be tortured forever eternally by God in hell because he doesn't join the Catholic Church because he's Mormon. I look at you guys and I say, you guys are wonderful Christians, and your Christian church has taken you so far that you actually will go to a heaven probably very similar to what you imagine. But what we have brought is something to add on to what you guys have. And so I believe that the Bible and all of this, it is wonderful, it's true, it's good, it takes people towards Jesus Christ. I'm just saying, don't stop there. There's more that God has revealed and will reveal to the world, and come join with us so that you can have something bigger than you even have now, which is great. What you have now. I really don't know how Jacob could say the church has taken us so far when the church teaches so many things directly contrary to Mormonism. That the church teaches us there is only one God. He exists as three co-equal and co-eternal persons, whereas Mormonism teaches God and man are just of the same species, and men can become gods. And I guess maybe I'm going to get my own consolation prize heaven, and Jacob will get his own universe to run. Uh, so I, I guess I get to miss out on that. But how could he say that the Catholic Church brought us so far when it teaches directly contrary against the Mormon view of who God is, the Mormon view of who Jesus is, the fact that Jesus and the devil are eternal intelligences, or they were both begotten of the Father. So technically, Jesus and the devil are brothers because they both have the same heavenly Father who begot them. If you go down this way, I, I don't see how he could say anything that he should just say, no, like previous Mormons did in the past. Not saying it's official Mormon teaching, but previous Mormons who said that when the Book of Mormon refers to the great and abominable church, uh, it's referring to the Catholic Church.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible, that the 73 books of the Bible are divinely inspired is because the church Jesus Christ established authoritatively taught that, first at local, regional councils, and then at an ecumenical council in the 16th century. And as I noted earlier in the debate, this canon problem also exists for Mormons as well, because they would say the 1611 King James Bible is inspired as far as it's correctly translated. Uh, but why would one believe that when it was believed when Joseph Smith believed that before he ever received a revelation from an angel? Well, the Bible came from the church that Christ established, and that's why I believe it's divinely inspired. And the church says the Book of Mormon is not.

Okay. So it is funny. Trent did just admit, at the base of his worldview, when you dig down, why do you believe in all of this stuff? The book of Exodus to be inspired despite its lack of archaeological evidence? He says, because of witnesses to the resurrection. And I said, what witnesses? Um, well, we got maybe three, and it's from late accounts, and they're anonymous. And one of them was just a visionary account with Paul. And, um, okay, I got three, and we don't even have like the actual things. But on the other hand, I'm presenting 19 eyewitness accounts with hundreds of accounts. And then all he can do to rebut that is to bring up sort of obvious, sort of anti-people that are against them who are who are trying to, to, to catch them in their words. But he hasn't looked at the en. You could just go read Richard Anderson's book on the, on the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are solid, and they never denied them. They were sincere. And those are the same criteria that he uses to believe the Apostles. So it's a clear and obvious double standard.

Question for Jacob. Uh, do you think the early church fathers and apostles got Jesus's teachings wrong? If so, why? I think he's referring to the Great Apostasy. So, yeah, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Book of Mormon. It has more to do with the, the subject of the Great Apostasy. Um, but as far as, uh, the early church fathers, I believe that they had a whole bunch of things right. Uh, the Great Apostasy, there's a big misnomer that people have about it. We don't believe that all truth was suddenly like sucked from the earth and the Holy Spirit was not operative or anything like that. We believe that the, the apostasy, when you actually define what we mean by it, it means that the authority held by the original Apostles, the, the 12, they had the authority to give new public revelation. Right? That is something that Catholics and us agree on. Catholics also agree that that authority did not continue after that, that the, the public revelation had ceased with those Apostles. What we believe is that that was what the apostasy is. It's the loss of this connection for God's direct revelation to man through those who hold apostolic keys in order to give that authority. So I believe that a lot of the, the teachings that they went on with were, were good and right and true. I also believe some were corrupted. There was great controversy in the church. But the apostasy, as it stands, is a commentary on the authority of the Apostles ceasing. And I have to admit, the Catholics would have to admit that at least in the area of the authority to give public revelation, new public revelation, that that did indeed cease. And I think there's a point of agreement there. Yeah, there's an agreement that public revelation ended in the apostolic age. But Mormons believe it's far more than that. Not just that the authority to give public revelation ended, but the authority to bind believers and to teach them, that that ceased. And not just that, but that the Church of Jesus Christ, the church Christ established, no longer exists after the time of the Apostles and was replaced with a great and abominable church. And that this, this church Christ established, that the council, that the, I'm sure Jacob would say the Council of Nicaea did not have authority to bind Christians to Trinitarian doctrine. But we believe that because we believe the Church of Jesus Christ never left the face of the earth, that the successors of the Apostles, they could not give new revelation, but they were capable of binding believers to a greater understanding of the original revelation that was be given. And the argument gave was still not answer that. If Catholicism is true, if you do believe that, then naturally Mormonism would be false. Okay, bit of a straw man there.

Question for you, Trent, from TA from YouTube. He says, "I would love to hear what Horn believes are the criteria necessary to prove a thing is divinely inspired." Sure. I think I would go back. So why do I believe this was important in my journey, actually, as a Christian? That I, I came to believe that God existed and from historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead. And I did that without believing the Bible is divinely inspired. I just believe that these are ancient documents, uh, that come and it's not just from secondhand or non-eyewitnesses or anonymous sources. We know Paul wrote his letters. We know Paul knew the Apostles, and Paul testifies to Jesus's post-resurrection appearances. We know Luke was a companion of Paul, and Luke describes the post-resurrection appearances. No reason to make up a Luke if you're going to make up somebody, why some anonymous guy like Luke? So historically, I can demonstrate that that a miracle occurred and began the Christian faith and the Christian church. So from there, though, the reason I believe that the Bible,

It's time to at the very least take them seriously. Stephen Webb, the Catholic theologian and philosopher, said, "Mormonism is obsessed with Christ, and everything it teaches is meant to awaken, encourage, and expand faith in him." I came to this conclusion when I read through the Book of Mormon for the first time. So why not be curious about us? We don't bite. Why not get to know us? I've heard that we're nice people. Why not read this book in a serious way before you mock it? There are millions of people whose lives have been made better by this book, including mine. And for those of you feeling spiritually unsatisfied and looking for hope in today's darkening world, please consider where the Book of Mormon says that you can find it.

"Behold, ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, and this because of your faith. Wherefore, who so believeth in God might with assurance hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God." It is my personal witness to you that these words are inspired of God, and that if you open your heart, God will reveal that to you as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob. Trent, whatever you want to begin. Take your time. Okay. All right. All right. Well, let's draw together the threads of the debate. All right. So the burden was on Jacob to show that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired document, and he presented various arguments to show that it's, to purportedly show it's inspired. And he tried to answer some of my arguments that show that it is a human document, and he was not able to do that. He did not meet the burden of showing God must have written this book rather than some other human author, be it Joseph Smith or someone else. And we've heard a lot today about comparing Christianity and Mormonism, and when you do make those comparisons, you see they simply don't add up.

Were any of the Apostles excommunicated from the church after Christ's Resurrection? No. Were the founding witnesses excommunicated? Yes. Were the Apostles able to examine Christ's empty tomb to be able to see that this was a bodily resurrection and not a mere vision? Yes, they're able to do that. Could people still examine the Golden Plates later? Gone back to heaven. Did Paul say that what he saw was a vision or an impression that he felt? No. In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul says, "Have I not seen the Lord?" just as he speaks of seeing other things. Did the Apostles fight back against their persecutors like Joseph Smith fought back in that shootout in the Carthage Jail? No, they did not. Were what the Apostles taught and said been confirmed by archaeology? Absolutely. Things like the pilot stone that I mentioned earlier in our discussion. Has what Joseph Smith described as happening in the New World been confirmed by archaeology? No. Jacob, I'm sorry, Jacob went on at length about a purported archaeological find in the Old World, but notice he certainly did that in the New World and just expressed a kind of skepticism that we can't really know anything, and maybe hoping against hope there will be some kind of evidence that might be unearthed in the future. Which, once again, to make the comparison, did the Apostles say that an entire civilization warring with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people over a thousand-year period existed in a particular place, especially if Mesoamerica, just within a few hundred miles, that has never been confirmed at all? No, they didn't say that. We see that the witnesses, I would rather have, I would rather have two extremely solid witnesses such as St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians and St. Luke's bodily description of the Resurrection, solid witnesses for the Resurrection, than 19 incredibly sketchy witnesses of an angel they prayed really hard to see, or plates that they saw but not seeing the inside or wondering what it is.

So recall, I presented four arguments of the Book of Mormon not being inspired. It's nothing like the Bible. We know where these biblical events happened, but for something, a report to be an actual history, Jacob will admit that the church does not say where this happened, and there are reputable Mormon scholars that place it thousands of miles away. No one knows exactly where that is. We talked about things like plagiarism, for example. Yeah, I would encourage you, go ahead and read the Book of Mormon, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about, especially when you start reading, especially even in the beginning, in the books of Nephi, you'll say, "Wait, this sounds a lot like this character is just repeating a theme I heard in the New Testament." That's because Joseph Smith might not have formal education, but he did nightly Bible recitations and recitals and speaking with his own parents and was very adept at that, and you'll see it in the Book of Mormon when you read it. And finally, we talked about the truth of Catholicism disproving the Book of Mormon being the foundation for having the canon of scripture itself, that is a part of the Mormon faith, and that argument is never rejected. So if you're Catholic, I will admit that I think a lot of Mormon arguments have a problem with Protestantism. They can have a hard time answering this, but with Catholicism, we have something sure. We have something sure.

So I'd like to end with an appeal to Mormons who might be watching. Deep down, you might think what most is your internal testimony, but I would say I want to affirm that many of your personal convictions are correct. God instituted one church with a hierarchy of elders. He did not want untold numbers of denominations with pastors that run Bible studies. And the church is not pastors following the man-made doctrine of solos scriptura. It's those who hold the priesthood who have continued the Church of Christ to gather people together to salvation. So I would encourage you to know that this one Church of Christ, that it's safeguarded public revelation that was given and continues to exist to teach and bind believers with teaching authority, with infallible teaching authority, to know the teachings on marriage and life are things that can never be gainsaid by heretics in the future, to lead us to Christ, not to a Christ who is a mere creature like us who is exalted, but the Christ who is the creator of all, the one infinite God who infinitely loves us and desires for us to have a relationship with him and to enter into the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church He founded 2,000 years ago that has never disappeared from the face of the Earth. Thank you.

Trent, thank you very much. Jacob, where can people learn more about you and what you do? So my channel is called Thoughtful Faith, and I cover everything from theology to philosophy to current events from a Latter-day Saint perspective. So check me out on YouTube there. All right, Trent, you can check me out at The Council of Trent. So just search Trent Horn on YouTube, iTunes, Google Play. A lot of my articles are also available at Catholic.com. And this is with the Qui us. And if you're watching right now, please consider subscribing and coming back. We do long-form interviews, debates, and things you might find interesting. God bless. Thanks very much.