NOW! Come challenge this Protestant live! | Presuppositional Apologetics Debate

Welcome to your favorite stream of the week. I know it's my favorite stream of the week. And what is this stream, you might ask? Well, if you're new here, tonight we are doing a live debate stream. So, we are going to debate every single person who is anti-Christian or anti-Protestant. So, the debater tonight, because I am just the host, my name is Alexander Maderas. You may know me as Wi-Fi Gospel. Uh, but the debater tonight is the president of the Think Institute, Joel Sedicase. And as Joel comes up here to say hi to everybody, I will tell you, not only will Joel debate if you're an atheist or you're a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, but if you're a Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, uh, or just an Armenian who Armenian who has, uh, some points of disagreements with the Calvinist or reformed worldview, you're welcome to come up and share those disagreements as well. Uh we usually go for about 10 to 15 minutes per person and we will drop that link shortly. But first Joel has uh an introductory statement he likes to say beforehand to kind of get the ball rolling on the debates and conversations. Right, Joel?

You are muted. It does not fail.

I literally cannot believe that. I can't believe every single week I mute myself. Do you know that somebody said um that the amount of X's hold on people don't know what our names are let's put our names up on the screen. So as as everyone can see Alex has three X's now when his mother his his dear precious mother when she named him she gave him four X's in his name. He was originally it was going to be Alexander and then she's like no no that's that's a little too much. So she just gave him two. Okay. But what's happened is over the years as he's gained accomplishments and he's he's he's achieved different goals in his life, he's he's been able to to win more X's in his name. It's sort of like, you know, like in an RPG, you collect coins probably. I never really played RPGs, but like, you know, like like you collect things and you get prizes. Well, Alex is collecting X's and someone suggested that um that you should get more more or less X's based on how long your beard is. I thought that was >> that was pretty good.

I'm gonna have no exes right now then.

Yeah, it's really it's really um it's really a shadow of its former self.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't look homeless anymore though.

No. No. Very.

And you know what it's you know this Joel because you're on camera a lot. Especially with facial hair. It looks very different based on lighting and in person versus camera, right? So on camera I could hide, right? But in the in the sunlight, you see through all the the loose hair in my beard and it it looks really homeless.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Very true. No, you're right. The camera the camera is good for facial hair, I think.

Yeah.

Yeah, definitely.

For sure.

All right. Uh, so, let me give my opening statement and it's going to be based on or we're going to be talking about Solos Scriptor tonight because I want to see if we can get some Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics to jump in. And if not, that's perfect.

Real quick, right before you start, can you make a different link? The only thing that gets confusing is you have to enter the capital letters, okay, for TTI.

Okay.

And some people, unfortunately, some of the debate opponents can barely get on the stream as it.

But but those are the. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, you're right. You're right. Let's see. Uh, what about uh debate? I got to keep coming up with a new one, you know, like.

No, you need to just pay the pro version so you can edit the link after.

Yeah. No, I'm not going to do that. Here, watch this. I'm gonna put it in the chat now. Okay. I I gotta go. I gotta go.

There you go.

No, you still look homeless. Just kidding.

Banned. You forgot I have moderator privileges. Banned.

OH, BANNED. BANNED. LA Apologetics 2.0. He's going to have to be LA Apologetics 3.0 after this because he's gone. All right. Uh, okay. I just posted the the link there. No, no, no, no. That's not it. Hold on. It didn't. It didn't. Hold on. What the heck? Oh, it doesn't work. Uh, maybe this one. Got it. Okay. Boom.

All right.

There you go.

Okay. Opening statement.

Yes, sir.

Tonight, I want to explain Solos Scriptor and why we hold to it. In chapter two of his book, Scripture Alone, excellent book, James White starts with several several things that Solos Scriptor does not mean. It does not mean the Bible is a universal encyclopedia. It does not mean the Bible contains every detail about the life and ministry of Jesus. It does not mean the Bible is a preventative against multiple denominations springing up. It does not mean the Bible must produce perfect agreement among believers. It does not mean the Bible prevents problems arising from not reading it. It does not mean that the Bible is all we have. It does not mean that our only options are one, me under a tree in the woods alone with my Bible or two, the infallible pope in Rome. I think that's kind of a rhyme. Me under a tree in the woods alone or the infallible pope in Rome. It does not mean that the Bible was sufficient prior to its being written. And it does not mean that the Bible muzzles the Holy Spirit. How is Solos Scriptor actually defined? Solos Scriptor is the doctrine that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the people of God for the church. A rule of faith is that which governs and guides what we believe and why. In other words, Solos Scriptor affirms in James White's words the freedom of scripture to rule as God's word for the church disentangled from papal and ecclesiastical magisterium and tradition. So a corollary to all this is the idea that again in James White's words all a person must believe to be a follower of Christ is found in scripture and no other source. Now, I'm not going to make this a long belabored argument because this should be self-evidently true if you are a believer in Jesus Christ. The Bible has attributes which no other writing, no other authority has. And the long and short of it is the Bible has unique authority as coming from God. The Bible has clarity. The Bible is sufficiently clear in its primary doctrines when it comes to what the church needs to believe in order to be saved and um uh and why we trust in Jesus Christ for example all of our primary doctrines. So authority, clarity, truth, the Bible is absolutely true. It is inherent and infallible in a way that we can trust. No other document, no other writing, no other teaching, no other authority. And the Bible is sufficient. If you have the Bible, you have all that you need for life and godliness. Does that mean that we don't listen to our pastors? No. Obviously, we do listen to our pastors because the Bible tells us to. Do we submit to our elders and overseers? Yes, we do. But we also test what they see, what they say by scripture. The the Bible is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be fully equipped may be perfect, fully equipped for every good work. And perfect in this sense meaning complete. Not sinless, but complete. So the Bible has authority, clarity, truth and sufficiency that no other source or writing or teaching or authority has. Um, furthermore, if you try to say that your church's magisterium or your preferred councils or bishops have authority equal to the Bible, I'm going to say on what basis do you interpret those authorities in your life and in your church? Um, and if they are sufficiently clear, are you saying that they are more clear than God himself? And obviously, God is a much better communicator than your bishop and your council. Hopefully, you won't dispute that, but we all know that somebody will, and that's why we have debates. So, the Bible is authoritative, clear, true, and sufficient acts. That reminds us of Acts, the book of Acts. And in the Acts of the Apostles 17:10-15, we read about the Bereans whom God himself calls more noble because unlike the Jews at Thessalonica, the the Berean Jews tested everything that Paul said, receiving it gladly and testing it according to scripture. And that's what we need to do as well. We need to be good Bereans. So that's my opening statement. That's why I believe in Solos Scriptor because it's what the Bible teaches and um I'll rest my case there and we'll see what kind of debates come up from that opening statement.

Awesome. Thank you for that Joel. Real quick, wherever you guys are watching, hit that like and subscribe button and if you haven't been aware, we are going to eventually move all of the debate streams over to Think Debates. So, you don't have to watch it there tonight, but make sure you are subscribed over there. And eventually, I think once we hit 1,000 subscribers, you won't see these debate streams on the Think Institute anymore. I think that's what the goal is. I am Oh, you're muted.

What? I don't even think I muted my. Did you mute me that time?

I did not. I was typing in chats to drop the link.

This is a conspiracy.

All right. So, uh, do we have uh We haven't posted the link yet, have we?

Yeah, I'm posting it right now if you want to go pin all those.

Okay. Yep. I'll go pin them.

You couldn't pin me if you tried.

Just trying to pin a link, man. Just trying to pin a link.

Who? All right. If we hit the goal tonight, me and Joel, I will fly out to Chicago and me and Joel do a live wrestling match.

Don't say that. Don't say that. I got a torn rotator cuff. I don't want to have to beat you with a torn rotator cuff. That would just be embarrassing for you.

All right. Uh,

I'm only saying this because I weigh about a hundred more pounds than Joel, so I have the advantage.

It's not going to matter. It's not going to matter at all. Okay, hold on. Let me Oh man, all this housekeeping. Okay, I'm trying to pin I'm pinning the links right now, but I've got to get to the right video. We've got four different videos going plus yours. So, I'm I'm pinning them while I'm going from channel to channel and account to account. Okay. By the way, if you haven't done so, everybody, go ahead and subscribe to Alex Maderos's channel. Uh, Alex, have you done your Word Wars debates yet?

No. Um, I just got a text today from the organizer who said he will be reaching out soon.

Okay. So, I'm guessing the first one uh they're probably going to be like once a week because it's getting close. They're doing the event in April.

So.

Sweet. Okay. So, it's coming up.

Yeah, it's coming up. The only thing is it's it's interesting. He's picking the topics.

And he's picking your position on the topic.

Oh,

yeah. So there are some topics that would be really tough for me to in good faith debate on the side I don't agree with like abortion for example.

Yeah. So this is just really testing your debate skills.

Right. And then like in the future if I were to be on their platform for a regular debate and a regular position then it would be more traditional of you're arguing what you actually believe.

I see.

And who knows I could get the side I believe on on every topic. Who knows?

Sure.

Yeah.

But yeah, I mean, arguing Oh, man. I wouldn't even feel right arguing for a, you know, certain things. I mean.

That'd be very, very difficult.

Uh, you know, I used to do that when I was in high school.

Um, in my English class.

We would do in-class debates and I would spend like 10 minutes debating on one side real vigorously and then I go, "Let me just see if I can do the other side." And I would switch sides mid class and I go, "Well, what about this other side?" And um it was it was fun, man. I don't know. I think I was I obviously YouTube wasn't a thing back then, but I was like kind of born to do this kind of thing. So anyway, uh, do we have anybody? We have nobody right now trying to get.

Nobody yet. Um, and I was just amazed at the fact that you were in eighth grade debating, you said.

Uh no, it was high school. It was like.

Oh,

this is like sophomore year.

Yeah. I uh I didn't have the maturity to debate in high school. I just told people to shut up when I disagreed with them or I'd beat them up. And uh I've matured since, I think.

Nice.

Yeah.

I I'm not saying I had maturity. I mean, I'm not saying I had maturity. There's You can definitely be a debater and not have maturity. I mean, case in point, watch any of our debate streams.

Uh, we have some questions. I don't Hey, Zans. Yes. Is that your only? There there is a debate if it's what what's the link?

tiny.cc/debate now.

Mhm.

Just type that in your browser. Um, can I partake in vaping even though I am a Christian?

No.

No.

No, you can't. Nope. Sorry.

I don't know if I if I can say it on here.

What? But vaping is not heterosexual.

I mean, I think we all knew that.

Uh, yeah. No, you can. Um, you can I mean, do I recommend it?

No, I don't recommend it.

No.

I don't I don't recommend smoking a pipe or smoking cigars. I don't like recommend them. Although smoking a pipe, I kind of do recommend smoking a pipe. Actually, I think that might be the one that I re because CS Lewis was solidly in favor of smoking a pipe. He said this. CS Lewis said this about smoking a pipe. Now, this is not taking into account all the the health risks and whatnot, although apparently pipe smokers do last longer than non-pipe smokers. I'm not giving scientific advice. If that turns out not to be true.

Community night.

You may not. Yeah. Don't Don't hold me accountable. I I I retract what I just said. I don't care. But see, I'm doing this thing the same thing. I'm I'm playing both sides. But um No. Uh CS Lewis said a pipe gives a man gives a wise man something to do while he's thinking and gives a fool something to stick in his mouth so he won't speak. It's pretty good. Think about it.

Not bad. Not bad. Yeah.

So, there are benefits.

Yes.

Um, there are benefits. Um, you don't have anybody blocked from the debate stream, right? We never set that up.

I don't think so.

Yeah.

Well, look, if you can if you can comment in the chat, you should be able to get through. Yeah, because there is a way to block people on Streamyard, but we haven't set that up yet. No.

We haven't had to use it and hopefully we don't have to because it's easier to get people on when you don't have that set up.

But um.

Right.

Oh, what was I just going to say? Sorry, there's a lot of a lot of comments.

Yeah, we've got a lot of comments right now and no debaters. Nobody wants to step up.

You know what I was going to say? So, I read a ton of Spurgeon when I became a Calvinist.

Yeah. Um, and in fact, you know, Spurgeon is one of the guys who even anti-Calvinists love. Have you noticed that?

Oh, for sure.

Yeah. Um.

And Jonathan Edwards, I would say.

Okay. Okay. Definitely Spurgeon. And so my grandfather was rapidly anti-Calvinist.

This is my complete index to CH Spurgeon's sermons 1855 to 197.

All of he he had all of his sermons written. Oh.

So somebody would well, I'm sure not all of them, but a lot of them.

Um, he also one thing that was awesome is he would he would pray for a long time.

Um, and his prayers if you just if you want to enhance your prayer life um just read Spurgeon prayers over and over again because.

Uh boy knew how to pray.

You know Spurgeon he used to give tours of his church and he would bring people down on a Sunday. He'd bring them down into the the basement of the church, Metropolitan Tabernacle, and he would say, "We're going to show you the he called it the heater plant, which is like uh the boiler room, you know, like the room where the energy is is produced." And he goes, "Look, I'm going to show you the heater plant." And he'd open it up and there's like a dozen or so people in there praying.

Yeah.

And you just you just love that because Spurgeon knew that's where power came from. And you look at the man's ministry and the incredible impact he continues to have on guys like you and me and on your uncle, Calvinist, non-Calvinist, B, you know, he's a Baptist, right? Baptist, non-Baptist, covenant theologians, new covenant theologians.

And you go, how is it possible for one man to have that kind of impact? Well, Spurgeon probably had more people praying for him than anybody. And Spurgeon knew how to pray and he valued prayer.

So.

Uh, The story goes, I forget where the story is from, but the story goes there was three young men visiting town. They wanted to see the great preacher. People would literally go come from all over. I'm pretty sure there's a famous quote of like Benjamin uh Franklin where he.

No.

Is going. It's not Benjamin Franklin. Who? It's an atheist.

I can't I can't I shouldn't.

I shouldn't Dale Carnegie says you're not supposed to publicly correct someone. Okay. So, I shouldn't publicly correct you, but I'm going to because there's no way. Historically, it doesn't line up.

So, there's an atheist then.

Okay.

It was some famous atheist. I'll get the name.

Okay.

Uh, and he's going to a Spurgeon sermon and someone's like, "What are you doing here?" He's like, "Well, I don't believe it, but he does." Maybe it was Whitfield.

No, it was Whitfield. Yes, it was Frank. Yes, it was. It was talking about Whitfield. Whit Whitfield is like was like the Spurgeon before Spurgeon.

You know, Whitfield was the great.

Between him and Edwards, those were the great preachers of the First Great Awakening. And uh, and Wesley of course too, who was not not a Calvinist, but um, but Whitfield held Wesley in totally high regard even though Wesley was a rabid anti-Calvinist. So yeah, those guys knew how to pray for sure.

Gotcha. Um, so apparently let me finish my story and then I'll address Milton.

Yeah, I'm seeing what you're seeing too. So the story goes, three young men are in town coming to see the great preacher and a man walks up to them and says, "Hey, you want a tour?" And then he goes to the boiler room. He's like, "This is where all the power of the entire church comes from."

Yeah.

And he opens it and he just sees people praying. And the person giving the tour ended up being Spurgeon.

Is that what it was?

Yeah. But there's also the other story about him with pipes and or cigars and whiskey and he would enjoy after a long day a cigar or a pipe and some whiskey. Um, and he wouldn't brag about it but he was open about it. Yeah.

Until he heard mothers coming to him um saying my children are drinking and smoking and saying, "Well, Spurgeon does it, so it must be all right." And he was convicted by that. and at least stopped publicly saying he did.

Yeah. Which is a great Romans 14 application. I mean, that's what Solos Scriptor gets you. You go, okay, I know that I have the right to do this. I'm not sinning. He Spurgeon famously, I would say, rebuked. There was a pastor named Pastor Pentecost and that was his actual name.

Really?

Really, dead serious. And he stood up and and attempted to publicly rebuke Spurgeon for smoking cigars. And this was I I believe he was like guest preaching in his pulpit or something like that. And Spurgeon got up and said, "I will absolutely give up cigars when you can show me in this book where it says I may not smoke." And I'm paraphrasing, okay? And obviously this is a Geneva Bible. He would have used a King James, okay? But but um, but Spurgeon took the word very seriously, which means he knew what he was entitled to do and he also knew when to scale it back and to temper his own liberties for the sake of his fellow believers. And you got to respect that. You got to respect that.

Absolutely.

Hey, Christian King is here, by the way. Christian King, uh, go check out his channel, too. That brother is doing some great work. Great work.

So, apparently we do have some people blocked.

Yeah. I don't know how that works. It's either Milton on all of his alt accounts or or his Oriental friends. Milton is the Oriental Orthodox you talked to last time, I believe.

I remember.

Um, he wants to debate Solos Scriptor, but Oh, what's up, Campfire Apologetics? How you doing?

Hey.

Um,

he's joined us.

So, I don't know.

Subscribe to his channel, too.

Mark, right?

Yeah. Mark Hudson. Yeah, Mark.

Yeah, he's a good brother. Um, it said I I don't I'll look into Milton. We have Zero over here ready to come on.

Fantastic.

Um, I'll look into that in the back end real quick.

All right. Thanks, man.

All right. Let's get that Let's get that one comment off the screen here. And, uh.

Zerotus, Zerotus, you're you're back. How you doing? You're muted. You're muted. You're pulling a Joel Sedicase right now.

Yeah.

Oh, I said it before Alex could say I said it before Alex could say it. Oh, you're you said you look just like Joel. You're so muted. Muted.

I was just going to say Sedicase fallacy, but you know.

Oh, command B.

There it is.

There we go.

There we go.

All right. Right before we go, we got a quick $5 from Raiders fans. Says, "God bless."

Raiders.

Thank you very much for the support. Appreciate you.

Thanks, brother.

The Raiders need extra supernatural help. Amen. We all We all do. Zerotus.

Yes. Zerotus.

Zerotus.

Uh.

Or Zerotus. Zerotus.

All right, sir. So, um, by you coming on now, we've debated I think twice, maybe thrice.

Three. Couple three times.

So, now I'm assuming that you're here because you are now a born again believer in Jesus Christ and you're ready to share that with me. Is that.

You know what I did? I I will give you some encouragement.

Okay.

Talked to.

I had AI look up everything that could be acceptable to a naturalist in the Bible and give me verses and I read them. So there you have it. Um, look.

That's a good start. You're going to scripture.

What was interesting was a lot of uh and it categorized things. If you haven't done this with uh I don't know what AI agent you have, but if you haven't done it, it's pretty interesting. It categorized them based on certain things like you know suffering and how that's kind of universal regardless what you believe, right? So it had it had a lot of interesting things to say. So.

Very cool.

And a lot of it was uh Psalms which uh are very nicely written literature.

Uh, let me let me just before we get into the debate let me commend something to you. Uh, first of all commend you for going to the scriptures.

Um.

Also though if you have not yet looked up the Scottish metrical Psalms there was one written in I think 1650 and then another one in 17 something. Um, they are the Psalms set to common meter most of them which is like a particular rhythm that.

You know you would sing Amazing Grace to or one of those hymns and um they're really nice.

Really nice. They're they're like the Psalms you know like in poetic form so very.

And I will share with you one thing you've heard of this uh production called Tiny Desk? It's by NPR out of New York and and various musical artists who are visiting New York say yes.

Yes.

So, uh, her name will come to me. I'll send you an email. But it's the most beautiful uh what do you call the when they're sung. They're still Psalms, aren't they? Now.

Yeah, sure. Yeah. Still.

Just a it's a hymn.

Okay.

Uh, and she found it in the National Archives and never heard of a recording of it and she sang it with the whole group there.

Wow.

Was very moving even for her. It's uh.

Very cool.

What What was her name?

It's right on the tip of my tongue. Anyway, I have I'm old. I have too many names. Too many names.

Yeah. Send me an email. I'd like to check that out.

Sure. Yeah, it's great. It's great.

Cool.

Uh, so.

I want to get into the whole logic thing.

Please, let's do it.

Yes. So, logic is universal. Let's I don't need to go through all of those, but the universal and always true kind of thing is what you hear you say. Okay.

And if you give me a definition of God, I understand that uh God is is you know not material. Correct.

That is correct. God is spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Yes.

Okay. So, how and this is going to be real easy for you. You're going to smack me down pretty quick. How is it that if Jesus is God and he's in the flesh and he's material?

Yes.

And God is not material, how can a be always not not a when that is two different things at the same time?

Okay, excellent question. When when Jesus um humbles himself to become a man, he is not losing anything. He's he's not not God at that time. God uh God the Son is not um he's not not material and material at the same time. He uh we understand something called the hypostatic union which means a union. It's a personal union. Hypostasis is a Greek word that means person. Uh we took that term from Greek philosophy because it fit. We kind of tweaked it and made it our own. And so when the word, the logos, the second person of the Trinity takes on humanity, he takes on a human nature without losing his divine nature. So the the incredible thing here theologically speaking is that when Jesus is in the flesh as a human being, at the same time, simultaneously, he's still upholding the universe by his powerful word according to Hebrews chapter 1:1-3. So um so there's no contradiction there because he's not not God and God at the same time. He's still God with respect to his divine nature. He's still omnipresent. He's still spirit. But he has taken on human flesh which is an addition, not a subtraction or a negation. So um the hypostatic union is not exactly something that you just roll out of bed one day and say, "Oh yeah, it makes perfect sense. I just fully wrap my head around it." But um theologically speaking there there and philosophically speaking there is no contradiction there.

It's hard for me not to see it and and I I have to consider I have to chew on it. And this is one of the things I do. I I think about things and I just let them ruminate month after month after month.

Yeah.

And I don't I just don't accept something without it having enough time to.

Uh, put down some roots, put out some fruit and let me know how good it tastes. It needs it needs to be.

Yeah.

Needs to be uh, you know, validated in some sense that I go about. Another question I have with you for you on logic is do you think logic is uh contingent?

No.

So if I were to say well you have a saying I've heard you say this before something about a pizza flying somewhere.

Ah.

To the west. Yeah, I got that from Saten Brigate, my friend who's a Christian apologist.

Yes, I know.

Yes. Okay. So, if.

If logic is not necessarily universal, objective and invariant over time, true in all possible worlds, then uh pizza swiftly in the west, therefore the much.

So, you gave me something that's unintelligible, right? That that doesn't make any sense. However, um, it can only be made understood as it making no sense because we have an idea of intelligibility, right?

Yeah.

And that cannot be logical. But since you uttered it, how is it that it's universal? How is it that it has any domain without it being contingent upon you wanting to be intelligible? Now I grant.

What is the it here? The laws of logic.

It it Yes. Yes. Because I I'll grant you that it's it's nearly universal that everybody wants to be intelligible. However, I can show you some individuals who don't and they live mostly downtown Portland.

But there's plenty of them in Chicago, too. Believe me.

Yeah, I know it. Matter of fact, uh, got a Uh.

I'm still listening.

There's a big street in in Chicago with a last name matches my last name. It's a very interesting story. Um, my grandfather changed his name to this particular guy's name. He was an an Indian soldier, an a European guy who went to the mummy and fought at at Fort Dearborn and got slaughtered. Nurse a there's a doc there's a there's a plaque or something somewhere in Chicago that.

Mentions his name and Wells Avenue is named after him.

Interesting. Yeah.

Yeah. Little interesting family story.

Very cool. Uh, okay. So the question is about intelligibility and what's exactly the question like? Well, logic being contingent upon desiring or expecting or operating in a unstated nearly ubiquitously held desire to be intelligible.

Right?

And if if you don't want to be intelligible, you can say things like this pizza thing say, right?

So to me, it sounds like that's a case for contingency. Is it not?

Uh, well, it's a CA I respectfully I don't think it's a good case because the the whole point the well, the whole point of that thought experiment or whatever you want to call it, the the non-intelligible statement is that we all know that that's a nonsensical statement. It it literally doesn't mean anything. Just like if I were to say uh, you know, my headphones are black and they're not black in the same sense and at the same time. Um, I can tell you that and I can strive really hard to be unintelligible, but that proves the point because intelligibility um, requires a prior acceptance of the laws of logic which are true whether or not we accept them. So, I'm intelligible. My communication is intelligible or not in so far as I agree with those laws of logic.

Um, which are there necessarily in all possible worlds again, regardless of whether or not you or I even desire to follow them.

I I'll I'll grant that.

Okay. But I'm wondering uh I'm wondering that it's still contingent, meaning the uh their effect is contingent upon that need to be intelligible.

Well, let's let's put it this way. I'm sorry I cut you off. Go ahead.

Yeah, that's okay. I just was going to add that there are some people who, you know, we you you can study informal uh uh fallacies, right? Um, there's a h thousands of them. You can invent them, right?

Yeah. No limit on how you can be wrong. So, we do know that people do uh try to conclude things.

Yes.

Um, based on what they want to conclude.

Totally.

Aren't correct and aren't logically valid. Um, so the the the contingency of logic being a an avenue toward truth.

Is is, you know, dependent on that uh desire to have intelligibility and to have.

Validity. It takes effort to get there.

Well, I don't disagree with that at all. I I actually totally agree with you. I think that um, the way I would express it is that the laws of logic are there. They're universal. They're invariant. They're objective. They're necessary. Um, but there is a subjective side to communication. Just like I can say things with improper grammar.

Um, but that doesn't change the rules of grammar. I can, you know, the rules of grammar aren't a perfect parallel because those do change over time. We don't say the and thou, for example. But um, but I can communicate something badly even with bad intent. But what I'm doing there is I'm I'm breaking the laws that are there. Morality is the very it's a very similar thing like the laws of the the absolute morality of God is there and is still true regardless of whether or not you or I or even our society agrees with them. So for example um, you know, take something like you shall not steal. Stealing is wrong but you can still steal and you say well does that make it contingent? No because just because you can violate the law doesn't mean that that law changes. You're just breaking it. It's like a speed limit.

Um, the speed limit is posted. Now again, not a perfect parallel because speed limits can change.

Okay.

But I can break the speed limit. Um, I can intend to break the speed limit, but the speed limit is objective. Laws of logic are different, of course, because it's impossible to to say something intelligible, actually intelligible, even if you're really good at sophistry and you can make it seem like a contradiction is true. There's people who can do that. People who are very slick.

But it doesn't actually change the laws of logic. And but this is one reason we do debates is because as you break it down and you uncover what the person is really saying, you can generally find the contradiction. You might not always be able to, but if there's a contradiction there and you unearth it, you can show how the.

Okay.

Person's argument is actually absurd.

So, let me let me then say the reason I'm I'm bringing this up is I hear you say a lot to your debate opponents uh that you don't even have the epistemic warrant to to use logic if you're an atheist or something something along that lines. It seems like.

As if you it was contingent upon belief in the Bible of the of the or the God of the Bible. So, is it contingent upon belief of the God of the Bible, or are we atheists stuck with what you believe is a God created logic that we we can adhere to and we can operate? So, we have just as much epistemic warrant to use it whether we agree that it was, you know, created by God or not.

Yeah. The the question is can you still use logic? Uh, can you still use logic without having the biblical worldview? The answer to that is yes to a certain extent. Um, but you can't account for it. And this is why we argue in a transcendental way.

Well, okay.

It's created by the God of the Bible that I don't believe in.

It's done. It's accounted for.

There you go. And that's perfect. If you're if you're now a count for it, then I can use your account for it and just use logic.

Right?

That's all I need to do.

And now you're no longer an atheist.

Um, okay. I'm a Zerotarian.

Yeah. So to be.

Zerotarian is interesting because.

To be real real quick though, to be a to be consistent, you'd actually need to become a Christian. If and this is what and I I actually applaud your candor here because you're admitting what most atheists won't. I'm not going to say they can't, but which is that in order to get the laws of logic, you've got to step over from your side into my side. You've got to say, uh, I need those laws of logic. I don't have anything that's transcendental and immaterial in my worldview like this, but you do, and I need those.

Yeah.

I have a I have a different founding, right? But I won't I won't argue it because you have yours and you're you're not uh, let's say, flexible. You're not you're stuck with what you've got. There's nothing wrong with being what you are, right? I'm what I'm saying is if I gave you a consistent and a priori explanation of how it's founded, it doesn't matter. It won't matter to Joel, excuse me, Joel Scriptura. Okay. So, so if you so if you can you can do that, but again, then you're no longer an atheist. If you're using my grounding and you're saying, "Yeah, the laws of logic are grounded in the Triune God of scripture." The same Bible that teaches us that the laws of logic are grounded in God is the same Bible that says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. You and I deserve hell, but Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners like you and me. He was buried and he was raised to life. Now, you've got the moral obligation to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, which I hope that you will do. Um, but.

I I only defense and that defense would be.

It's a self-defeating defense.

You're claiming it's you're claiming it's universal and and whether I believe it or not, I have it. So, I say it's my grounding is your grounding.

Yeah. However, my grounding and your my expression of that is just doesn't go anywhere.

Well, then that's the debate right there. That's the debate. And now you need to become a Christian because the same the same Bible that tells me that God is the I AM that tells me that Jesus Christ upholds the universe by the word of his power. The same one that tells me that God cannot deny himself that God is spirit that God is keep.

Okay. The same Bible that tells me that God is known to all so that men are without excuse is the same Bible that says that the gospel is true. And we don't pick and choose which passages of scripture we believe. We believe the whole thing. And if you're going to try to pick and choose which Bible verses you use, you're going to have to recognize not only is that being that's doing an inconsistent I'm going to magnify myself here and then we'll when you come back we'll put you back on.

Sure. Sure.

But um.

I'm back.

You're then you're either doing an internal an inconsistent internal critique but then you're also reducing your own worldview to absurdity because you're admitting that your worldview can't account for logic. But that's not that's not really how we argue though because.

When you're doing a debate like this, you need to do a it's a clash of worldviews.

So you've got to internally critique mine and show the absurdity which can't be done. And then you've got to.

Well, you haven't yet. I mean.

Go ahead and try.

It's it's it's difficult. Um.

We've talked about this before when I talked about the library and it being full of uh non-fiction. what you have is a belief in that book. I would say prior to belief in God.

Okay?

And I could believe in any book. Let's say I could believe in any book. What I need is a differentiator. And that differentiator is going to say this book is different than these all these other books. And here's why it's different. And it can't really be from inside the book because all the other books say the same kind of thing.

All the other worldviews of all these other ones.

It's not so it's not just based on the bare claim though. And I've never argued for something like fitism which is like, you know, pick your worldview and believe it because you believe it. That's not the transcendental argument and that's not how scripture argues for itself. The Bible is self-authenticating. But the circle of the Bible when you start with scripture all reasoning about fundamental about epistemological foundations are ultimately circular, but the circle of the Bible is all-encompassing. It includes God, man, and the world. If you were to pick another random book like for example Harry Potter sometimes people say or Spider-Man or or people will bring up the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita or something like that.

It it's not too long before you recognize you're either just talking about the biblical worldview again in which case the Christian wins the argument or you're you're going to run into some sort of fatal flaw, some internal inconsistency like with Islam, like with the Bhagavad Gita, like with, you know, pick your book. So, so yeah, the the Bible as an epistemological framework and foundation is undefeatable. It's it's can't be beaten because.

I understand those are are a belief that you hold and I just can't I just can't uh let it land on anything. It does not have it doesn't have anything to land on for me and I and I just need that whereas other things that I experience do have something to land on and I just don't have anything.

Like what?

Just.

Well, oh, you know, you could go into science and how that's backed and, you know, it's provisional. I and I feel much more comfortable knowing that um something is not um call it maniacally certain, right? It's it's not trying to be things that would be ultimate. It's being uh optimal, right? It's it's optimized in saying that you've got a really good reason to believe this. It could be wrong, but um, you know, lots of things could be wrong. And yet this same system produces, you know, deeply reliable and consistent results. So.

Science does.

Science does. Yes, absolutely. This thing that you're you got around your head, those earphones, those work due to uh well-studied electromagnetic principles.

Yes. No, I agree. Science is a wonderful Christian discipline. What is science grounded in for you, though?

It's not really Christian. It may have been invented by Christians and you could go on and on about all sorts of things invented by Christians. Sure. The electric chair, a toilet. I mean, it doesn't really matter because mostly people were Christian or burnt.

Uh, it's not that, you know, that it's not that simple. The principles underlying.

Well, some of the Christians were burnt too, like Joan of Arc.

Yeah. The the principles underlying science such as uniformity in nature, induction, and again, we come back to the laws of logic, the immaterial principles of mathematics. These are all you don't get science without these principles. And these all again make perfect sense within the biblical worldview. They do not make sense within an atheistic worldview. You're not going to get uniformity in nature.

As a pre-scientific commitment, which it must be unless you start with God. Unless you want to try to ground it. Go ahead. We've got a few more minutes. I asked Alex to extend the time a bit. But try try to ground it.

Uniformity in nature.

Yeah. Ground it without God.

With without a God.

Without the God of the Bible.

Right? Well, uniformity and nature is just a consistent replicable fact of some, you know, uh, like say gravity, uh, or electromagnetism.

Yeah. But that's a definition of it. What's what's the grounding for it? Why do you assume that it that it's true?

Are you asking for what kind of grounding?

It does.

Epistemic grounding. Why do you believe it?

Why does it need epistemic grounding?

Well, because that's what we're looking at. Remember, we're looking at foundations. We're looking at You said that science is reliable. That it's.

Yes.

It's got a good foundation. It produces reliable results. But science is dependent on Christian presuppositions.

Uniformity. Well, that's what I'm asking you to show. What's your argument that it's not?

Well, um, science looks at the natural world.

Right?

Right. So, the, uh, the founding is the natural world itself.

I which is uniform.

I mean, do you do you believe that it's uniform?

Well, there's.

The presumption of that, and and that presumption is absolutely unchallenged by anything anybody's ever done.

Well, you're speaking. May have been wrong about things, but we find out later that when we're corrected, we still see the uniformity of nature. You can get down to a quantum level and start arguing weird stuff. But let's talk about human level, right?

Yeah. No, listen, I'm I'm totally with you. Even the idea of testable, repeatable, uh, falsifiable hypotheses which we can test using the scientific method again all already presupposes there's an a priori commitment to uniformity in nature. That's why we can test our theories and see if they're true or false because we assume that the universe is not just constantly changing. And that is not a universal human assumption.

That is not that was not the assumption of the ancient Greeks. That was not the assumption of the ancient Babylonians. That was not the assumption of the ancient Chinese pagan cultures. You know, go ask the Germanic tribes if they thought, you know, pre-Christian, if they thought that the universe, the universe...

Well, are you saying that...

...was uniform? They wouldn't. Even the even the idea of the term universe, universe, univers, one word, one spoken word. That's a Christian principle. The idea that everything is unified such that we can even speak about it as a unified whole. That's a Christian presupposition.

I thought universe was one turn. Do you know about the procession of the equinoxes?

I I don't think that I think it's it comes from the word for one and word. I could be wrong.

I'll look it up. You got me going now. But regardless...

So the the grounding of it doesn't really accrue from the groundings of the religion that the the practitioners or developers of science. It it just doesn't it just doesn't work that way.

You're right.

You're right. Uni and where or ver meaning to turn or to bend. Bent into one. Bent into one. Yeah. Okay. So, I don't see anything about...

...the equinoxes. This is in Ezekiel, by the way.

Well, that's in the Bible.

God.

That's in the Bible. Hold on. Let's see. Um, world. Okay. Sorry. Uh, I'm now I'm looking at the etymology. I don't want to go on along to uh I love etymology, but but what were you saying? Ezekiel?

Uh Ezekiel talks about a vision of God and he describes God as having four faces. One of a lion, one of an eagle, one of a...

No, that's not God. Those are the cherubim. Those are those are throne guardians. That's not God. Those are the throne those are the angels that guard God's throne. Those are cherub cherabs. Cherab.

Okay. Do do they relate to anything in astrology? Not biblically speaking. No.

No.

No.

Do Do you know about the Megiddo church?

I know about Megiddo. I know about Hargiddo. I know about Megiddo, the plain of Megiddo outside of Jerusalem.

Name of a a present name of a town in Israel. And yeah.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the location and also its archaeological symbolism, but I'm not the Megiddo church that wouldn't have been around in uh Ezekiel's day. Ezekiel wrote 100 years before.

No, it's just another astrological uh suggestion that is tied with the Christian uh faith. And that's the the floor of the Megiddo Church was uncovered. And it's a beautiful Greek uh or Roman uh what do you call it? The the little pieces...

Fresco or...

...the tile pieces...

...like a mosaic or a fresco?

Mosaic.

Yeah.

Yes. Beautiful. And in the middle is Pisces, two fishes, and it's explicitly talks about Jesus.

Yeah.

Second century church. Second century.

But even that's going to be like several hundred years after Ezekiel. Um, there have definitely been efforts to tie the...

...signs of the zodiac to the gospel message. I'm I'm unconvinced that they're successful. You know, like um there's Virgo which that symbolizes Mary. They tried to to tie Scorpio with the devil, but the devil's a serpent, not a scorpion. So, you know, there there have been attempts here, but again, this is why we go with sola scriptura because we have to test all these ideas. The fact that an idea came up in a fresco in the sec second or third century...

...that's very interesting and I'm fascinated by that kind of history, but that's not scripture. So...

But even then, we're still talking about Christian ideas which are going to be deeply Trinitarian and deeply theological. We're still not talking about atheism. So the idea of the universe as a as a unified whole, whether it's one turning or one word...

...um, that still presupposes that's still a Christian...

...concept because we've got unity and diversity...

...combined. And um and that does presuppose...

Oh, who's that?

Christianity.

That's the police. He's come to tell us that we've overstayed our time. Alex's uh four on one. Uh, I know it sounds awful, but that's the way Planet Peterson titled it. Your four dudes versus one planet debate where you...

...gave the scowl.

Tell me about why naturalism is...

...good. Got him off track because I think he did a horrible job explaining to you. I could have I could have done better explaining what he was trying to say than than he did. Yeah, there was so there's a uh it was interesting because there's five topics, 18 minutes per topic and it was split between several of the debaters and uh so you raised your hand if you wanted to do the topic. So if you went first, you were kind of it was tougher because you kind of had to get like the ball rolling. So that's why I had so many questions of like I was trying to figure out where to go.

But...

Yeah, it seemed like you had a lot of the time though. I don't know why.

Yeah. Yeah. I had a good five minutes.

Yeah.

Yeah. It was fun.

I've been trying to debate you about uh America being a Christian nation, but you just keep running away.

Running away. Slipping on your syrup...

...is not an excuse.

What was our DM? I forget. Let's see. Uh, I got it right.

All right. Talk about this off talk about this offline. We people this is inside baseball. You guys work out your own debates. This is the the think debate. Besides, we all know that America is a Christian nation. Protestant to be particular, but...

...it's not.

We'll talk about that another time because we're out of time.

We want to debate that next time I show up. America is not a Christian nation.

I'm not fully prepared to do that, but I think I could do an okay job. I mean, I'd be...

...neither am I. So, we'd have a good show.

It would be it would be fun because I'd probably have to make some claims just like with Universe. I'd probably have to make some claims and I'd have to go back and maybe retract them. But, uh...

...and you might end up being a zerotarian when we're done.

Only if the Bible starts teaching it, which hold on. No, it's not in there. So...

...it it I will I was trying to get a background. I had to choose bricks, so you didn't see my computer on in the back, but I have a zerotarian page on on Facebook and it's got a an AI generated uh lord of zero of the null set and he's on a mountain holding up a tablet with zero on it.

Zero on it.

Yeah.

Interesting. So, jump on in. Everybody that's an atheist in the chat or watching, jump on to Facebook.

Nobody uses Facebook anymore. Come on.

It's all gonna all the bots are gonna go sign up for it. That's all who uses Facebook now.

Yeah.

But, uh, but anyways, Zerotus, good talking with you as always, sir.

Yeah. DM me on next. Let's let's get that debate set up.

All right. I'll hang on and chat with you a little bit.

All right. Talk to you, bro.

See you.

Peace.

All right, Joel. We we owe we owe uh Milton an apology. What happened?

Go to uh the settings gear on the bottom there next to the log out button.

Okay.

Then go to guests.

Yeah.

Oh.

And then...

...we do have authentication enabled. You must have did it last stream.

So, it's up to you. Do you want to keep So, authentication means you need to sign in via YouTube or Facebook.

Okay.

Because it depends where you're streaming to, where they allow you to sign in from. Make sense? And then if you don't sign in, you can't come up. If you do sign in, you're tracked by that profile. And so, and that's what allows you to be banned.

So, why wouldn't we do that then? Why don't people just sign in through Google?

You can um the that's that's completely fine. You can keep it that way. It does create a little bit of friction with getting guests, but I mean, if you can't sign into a Google account, then I guess you can't come up. Well, there are some people there are some people and we've talked about them and I won't mention who they are now, but there are definitely some people who are not going to come back.

Right? But I mean, you can always get around it by just signing in with a different Google profile.

Sure. Yes. But Milton Friedman, I'm okay talking to Milton Friedman again.

So, take him off that list so he can join.

All right.

Yeah. Abstract. I'm sorry. We did not realize this was we had this enabled. Yes. Um, I can't see it from my end and I was just I didn't think Joel had set it up. Joel did it probably by accident last week is what I'm guessing.

Guess must authenticate. Okay, so I took that off.

Well, if you keep...

...guests must authenticate on, then that's what you said like that.

It's up to you either way. But...

...if you want people to have to sign in so that you can ban them, keep that on. But you have to remove Milton from that list of banned guests.

Okay, I took Milton off that list. I took Milton off that list. Okay. And here he is. He just popped up.

Yeah. And so DB was in here. So Milton, give us about 15 minutes with DB and then we'll have you on.

And we've only got 53 minutes, 52 minutes left because we've got a hard stop at midnight central. So...

Yep.

We'll see what we can get.

Hey guys.

Hi DB. Are you a born again Christian?

I am.

Okay. What do you want to debate?

I am a Unitarian.

Okay. So, you're not a Christian?

Well, there you go. There's a controversy. Um, I do believe I am, and I don't believe Trinitarians can be saved, just to be candid about it. Yeah.

Okay. Uh, so what's your best argument for Unitarianism?

That um the um that is the default position that there no no being there's no such thing as a god, man. It's an implausible entity, very a uh, you know, an ontology of antithetical properties, attributes. I don't think it can exist. I think the three persons in one God had bear with me here, Joel, just to be candid, it's absurd. And I think that so just a plain reading of the text, there's a beauty and I I could get into it. The the gospel works when you have a real man being the mediator, being uh loving God with all his heart, mind, and soul, being obedient, being tempted, uh, not being able to raise himself from the dead, but putting the faith in God to do so. And just that the the gospel itself, it it demands it necessitates a human in my understanding. I don't I think the minute you introduce a god, man, you've broken the rules of the gospel.

Well, so you know that Trinitarians believe that Jesus is a real man, right? He wasn't masquerading. We're not Docetists. We do believe Jesus is a real man. That is what the Bible teaches. So that's not really a great argument for Unitarianism. Jesus is a real man.

Yeah. Um, the the complexity, the the unfathomable aspect of him being a god-man, because bear with me, if if I understood it correctly, you you do claim that he lived his life as a man, but when it comes to the atonement, the oblation itself, it had to be God in order to um be sufficient to absolve men from all the sins. I think this is where now the contradiction sort of enters a bit. If I've understood it correctly, that you insist he's a man, but then come the atonement, uh, the sacrifice, it's God's blood that was shed because men's sins were just so egregious and so, um, abundant. What else could possibly absolve you from your sins with such potency?

Well, it was God's blood because Jesus is God. Jesus is God in human flesh. And that is what John 1 is talking about. Um, and as for Jesus, not you said that you don't believe that Jesus could raise himself from the dead. Is that correct?

Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I I know the I know the verse where he he states that, but he does. And...

What is it? What's the verse?

Sorry. Chapter number I do not know. But when he says um I've received this from the Father, um I lay down my life and I have been given authority to to raise it up again. This is is given to me from the Father. Well, I'm I'm looking at here. Let me pull it up here. I want to make sure that I get it right.

Okay.

Um, so the No, you misquoted it. Respectfully, you misquoted it.

All right.

Um, yeah, he doesn't say he's received the authority from the Father. Here's what he says. This is John chapter 10. And I'm actually, if it's all right, well, you're you're not on screen anyway, so I'm going to actually share it.

Okay.

Um, because I want us all to be able to see this. This is really important. Okay. So, this is John 10:14-18. Here's what he says. "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." That, by the way, is a reference back to Psalm 23, in which Yahweh is my shepherd. That's Jesus calling himself Yahweh. "For this reason the Father loves me, because I laid down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from the Father." Not this authority, not this power, this charge. In other words, Jesus was commissioned when he was sent down to earth. When the Word became flesh, when the Son of God emptied himself, taking on the form of a man, taking on the form of a servant, although he was in the form of God, meaning he was and is God, when he became man, God the Father sent him with a specific task. That task was to lay down his life and to raise it back up again. But that doesn't mean Jesus received his power in an ontological sense from the Father. Rather, it's the charge that he received from the Father, the instruction or the commission that he received from the Father, not the authority, not the power. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I I see how you're interpreted, Joel. With all Yeah, with all due respect, um, there were a few uh interpretations you gave that I I wouldn't necessarily agree with. I don't think...

...is that based on exegesis?

Yeah. Well, absolutely. Yes. I think there's the first time I I think I've sort of seen that version where it uses the word charge and so forth. But but if I may, this may be something where we can sort of agree on or or or we're not going to agree on the terminology, but does it not become a bit odd again that that Christ, like what is the um what's the uh why so exemplary for Christ to lay down his life when he just has the ability to take it up again? It's like there's no sacrifice.

Oh, there absolutely is a sacrifice. Yes. It's his life. He He sacrificed himself. He... Paul says he gave himself for me. The Son of God loved me and gave himself for me. And by the way, I just looked up the word that Jesus uses there in John 10:18. It's entole. It's entole. It is commandment or precept. It's entole means commandment or command. So...

...yeah, unless you've got some sort of exegesis based on that passage, you have to grant that my interpretation is correct because the word does not mean authority. It means command. Very different. Interesting, Joel. Interesting. I'm I I would have to look into it further. Your time doesn't allow it at this particular moment.

I mean, we have time. Go ahead and look at look into it.

Okay. Um uh I was going to if you don't mind, but sorry. What I mean by sacrifice, it's not a sacrifice. If you have nothing to lose, it's not a sac. It's not a sacrifice. Like he was obedient even unto death. I mean, anybody would do that who has the ability to uh avoid the death by not being permanently dead. You know what I mean? Like there's no there's no sweat off here. There's no it's not it's not a daunting task for me to sacrifice something that I can just retrieve afterwards.

Well, listen, man. We respectfully, we've got to take what the Bible says. And you almost said no sweat off his nose or or something like that. You know that when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, he was sweating as it were drops of blood and he prayed to the Father. He said, um, "If it be possible, let this cup be taken from me. Yet not my will, but yours be done." Again, because Jesus was given the entole, the commandment from the Father. So, we would never minimize the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Um, but what you're saying is actually echoed in Hebrews 12:2. In Hebrews 12:2, it says, "Looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." So Jesus absolutely looked past the shame, and it was shameful to be...

...to be crucified naked in front of uh the public. It was the most ignominious death you could possibly endure. The Romans were expert um humiliators and executors. They flogged him. They they tortured him. They pressed the crown of thorns on his head. Jesus being a man in his humanity wanted there to be some other way, but was ultimately submitted to the will of his Father. So we would never downplay the sacrifice that Jesus took. Do you believe that Jesus became sin on our behalf so that we could become the righteousness of God?

No, that wouldn't be my atonement theory. No.

Well, that is what 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, word for word.

Yeah. Um, I think there's many ways to sort of express a particular uh event or action. I think I mean, he's the he's the Passover lamb. He's the he's the he's the ransom. He is uh many things. I think there's many ways to express it. To me, he was a Levitical sacrifice. I would I would um make it more towards Yom Kippur, where the whole nation is absolved of their sins.

You mean where they killed the where they killed the bull and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat?

That's right. And and the scapegoat that took off. But but he was the burnt offering in the in the time of Yom Kippur.

Oh, burnt offering was killed.

Yes. That's right. He he was that.

So that was a sacrifice. That's a sacrifice.

Yes. Abs. Yes, that's right. Sorry.

Right. But but look at what 2 Corinthians 5:21 says. "For his sake, he made him for our sake rather. He made him who knew no sin. Sorry. He made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Now I quoted this verse two minutes ago and you said you don't agree with it. Why?

Yeah. Um I I'm finding it hard to understand. Is this is this so much the fact that he he who was anybody hung on a cross is cursed? Is that sort of how he became a sin? Like would it be a correlate of that?

Well, that uh he did take the curse of the law. Yes. So that the righteous requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us. That's what Romans 8 says. The uh the curse of the law, anyone who hung on a tree is cursed. I believe that comes from Galatians. But yeah, these verses are all in perfect harmony and synergy with one another. Um, the way that he became sin was when he was hanging on the cross, he became the perfect offering for sin and experienced the cup of God's wrath. That's the cup of that's the cup that Jesus is speaking of in the Garden of Gethsemane. That's why he specifically says, "Let this cup be taken from me." Uh, if you go back and read the Old Testament prophets, it talks about a a cup of God's wrath, its judgment. The nations who come under his judgment will drink it down to the dregs. That's the same imagery that Jesus exper that Jesus expresses in the Garden of Gethsemane. The cup of God's wrath. So the wrath of God is satisfied. That's remember Yom Kippur, which you mentioned, was the day when the wrath of God would be temporarily symbolically satisfied. That's what the sprinkled blood represented on the hilasterion or the mercy seat. And that's the exact word that is used in Romans 3:25, hilasterion, which means mercy seat. Um, which is tied to hilasmos, which means atonement or propitiation rather. So, um, so yeah, that that is what Jesus did. It's he's the sacrifice, he's the mercy seat, he's the priest, he's the temple, he's the blood, it's all about him and...

...and and he's the divine sacrifice. So, what's the problem here?

Um, okay. So, fair enough. Okay. Sorry. Maybe maybe I I spoke a bit too quickly with second Corinthians. This I'm just not understanding it fully just from my own whatever inability. So what is the problem there? He became a divine sacrifice. Just that sort of that sort of circular type um he sacrificed himself to himself. That that absurdity, Joel, that you know, it sounds that way.

Why is that why is that absurd?

To sacrifice yourself to yourself?

Why would that be absurd? If that's what I was arguing, why would that be absurd?

Because um the um the demand I I God is the victim. God is the plaintiff in this scenario. He wouldn't he doesn't take take the place of of the culprit that you would need for him to come down. Man offended God. And for God to come down and absolve us of our sins to from to uh alleviate the wrath, the wrath is from God. So how like this sort of absurdity of of the judge, legislator coming down and and uh to do it on behalf of the culprit when the the legislator is the one who who was offended, who was the victim.

Why is that absurd? What's the contradiction there?

Well, I I can't think of any precedents in any judicial system where where the um the the the victim pays the price for the culprit.

What's I'm sorry. What's the logical contradiction? You said it was absurd. You just don't think you just don't like it or...

Well, well, because man offended God. So, God comes down now to pay the price in order to absolve man from his from God's own wrath.

Amen.

That's what the Bible teaches. Yes.

Well, but I can't think of any I can't see the logic, the the justice behind that. Well...

...if so, I say this very respectfully, but if you if the cross...

...seems like folly to you, that's...

...that's a sign that you are perishing. 1 Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God."

So, the idea that you find it nonsensical is an indictment against yourself.

Understood. Under I I get that for sure. I'm not mind you, my my contention is not with the cross because I do believe G a man was sacrificed on the cross and I get that sort of judicial system, but God on the cross, this is where the problem lies in my mind. So I do accept that atonement was required, that sacrifice was required because no no sin is redeemed without without blood. Blood must be shed in order to redeem the the guilty soul and so forth. So so I do understand that aspect. Um, but now who was that party that that that was the oblation? Was it a sheep? Was it a goat? Was it a man? Was it was it a divi a divinity? A deity? That's what I'm questioning. Exactly. Like that's where I find.

So you don't believe that Jesus is Yahweh? Correct.

Yes. I do not. Yes. Only Only the Father to me is Yahweh.

Okay. So did Isaiah see Yahweh when he saw his vision?

Yes. Uh he uh Yeah, that's right. The throne room vision. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Okay. So in John 12:41, who does the inspired apostle say that Isaiah saw?

Jesus, he claims.

So Jesus is Yahweh.

Uh I Jo, listen, I don't mean to be frivolous and just sort of convenient, but um I think there are many uh Yahweh texts can be applied to um other men and so forth. by predication doesn't make the identity the same, but by predication you can if the principle applies that that's my hermeneutic that I've sort of come that I I've defined that Jesus is God. It it that's a bigger leap than just to say this hermeneutical principle of applying Yahweh texts to men is permissible.

In that particular text, John specifically says, and I'll read it for you.

He this is I this is John 12:40. "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts so that they cannot see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them. Isaiah said these things." Oops. "Isaiah said these things because he saw Jesus's glory and spoke about him." So according to John, the inspired apostle in John Gospel according to John chapter 12...

Right?

...Isaiah didn't just see some man. He saw Yahweh. I mean, go back and read Isaiah's writings. Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up. He saw his glory, his train, he saw the train of his robe. Um, Isaiah saw, according to Isaiah, Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh.

Right?

John says Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus. Jesus is Yahweh.

I understand I understand the logic. I I just feel the Bible takes sort of liberties to some degree. like I called my son out of Egypt. Uh, we know originally that was of the Israelites, but he they applied to Jesus where again, Joel, this is a hermeneutic that I I think you need one needs to establish when they see these sort of um bizarre to say to call Jo to say Jesus is God. Like I mean, I mean, we've become a little desensitized, so it seems very common to make that expression, but to to really think that God's up in heaven the same time that men is down here, it is it's a stretch. So I think that hermeneutical principle is a bit more a less of a stretch of course and just a bit more plausible to um to to that roots.

So DB, that's not how we judge the Bible's teachings is what seems plausible to us. John 1:1-12 might have seemed implausible to the original readers, but it expressly says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And this Word is the one through whom the Father made all things. Without him was not anything made that has been made." So this Word predates all creation and is the functional cause of creation. And it's that Word that becomes flesh and tabernacles among us. Um, so you might say that that sounds implausible, but this is what the inspired author, the Apostle John the Evangelist, says. And respectfully, you can try to use hermeneutical principles to explain it away because it seems implausible, but the Bible is there, black and white, clear as crystal. It tells you the identity of the Word, and it tells you it's the exact same person as Jesus Christ. So, there's just no way around it. Jesus is Yahweh. Jesus is the Word, the second person of the Trinity. You've must have heard different interpretations for John 1, the prologue, that the the latter part, the last clause, see um, "and the Word was God." That's adjectival. The the Word was sublime. The Word was perfect. In the beginning was the Word, because if you if you were to take what the Word was to be Jesus in in the Trinitarian interpretation, "In the beginning it was Jesus. Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God."

We've got now a circular reference. Jesus was with God with him, and Jesus was that person that he was with. It's a bit it's it's we're getting the absurd again.

No, it's not actually, because if you read it in the Greek, there's ho Theos, which means the God, or uh in the New Testament speaking of God the Father. And then it says, um, uh, arain, uh, and theos halagos, meaning God was the Word, or the Word was God. There is no article there. So John is is being theologically meticulous to show that the Word is equal to the God, equal to the God with the God at the Father's side at the beginning of creation, just as Jesus says in John 17. But he is not identical to the Father. John could not express it in a more theologically meticulous way. You need to go back and study this because you're missing the identity of Jesus Christ based on what you find plausible. And respectfully, I think you ought to get your plausibility structures from scripture, not from your own mind.

No, I agreed. Agreed. Um, uh, which I believe I am. I guess is this is the only difference here. Um, can you can you can you then give me the prologue of John? It it with with the words that you use. So, you you replaced you replaced God with Father at one point. Can you can you just give the three...

No, I'm not I'm not replacing anything. I'm reading to you what it says and I'm explaining how John uses these terms.

Right. Sorry. Not replacing, but yeah, just how you interpreted it. Yes.

Well, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He, i.e., the Word, the Logos, was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him.

This is not an impersonal principle.

And without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (Also translated as "has not comprehended it.") "There was a man sent from God whose name was John." Let's fast forward to verse 9. "The true light which gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him." That's a reference to the Old Testament when God the Son shows up in Christophanies all throughout the Old Testament. Genesis 19 is a great example. "He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Verse 14, this is the key. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That's the word for tabernacle. It's the Old Testament God joining us as believers, as Christians, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. So this is absolutely a Trinitarian text. Jesus is Yahweh. There's just no way around it.

Huh. I would I would I would interpret that differently and I I don't I do not perceive myself as being frivolous or um hard fast and loose with the text. Um that that uh he's speaking John is speaking in a very sort of profound manner. He's using a little bit of uh symbolism to some degree, but "In the beginning was the Word, God's God's wisdom. God's wisdom and the Word was with the wisdom was with God as we read in Proverbs, something from the beginning of time, all that. And we're getting that sort of imagery. And the Word was perfect. It was sublime because..."

Well, it it says it says godlike.

No, it doesn't say godlike. Well, that I I've heard from many um uh Greek uh uh scholars on this that that it's a viable translation to say that it was adjectival. It's...

Well, okay, the Word is the Theos. It's the exact same word that he just used in uh the previous clause. So, it's it's article.

Oh, without the article. Right. Exactly. So, it's it's you could say um you could say divine, but we're not talking about it. It does not say perfect. There are words for perfect. Um, certainly doesn't mean sublime. Um, but either way, either way, this is still talking about the Logos pre-existing creation and entering into his creation first in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament era, in the New Covenant era as Jesus the man.

Right?

So, this is that this divine principle is becoming a man and tabernacling among us. I I agree with you that Jesus is the the wisdom of God. I agree that Jesus is the personification of wisdom. I think Colossians 2:3 talks about that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him. There's no question.

Um, there's no question about that that Jesus is the divine that he's the divine Logos. But that's just it. The divine Logos is a person. Um, just like the love of God, we could say, is manifested as the the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. So the Son is the wisdom of of God, the wisdom of the Father. That but that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus is described here as the Logos, and the Logos is personal. We again, we have to take what scripture says on its own terms. We can't import plausibility structures that come from outside the text.

And and do you feel that there's no other way of interpreting like you went through from John 1 to John maybe possibly around 14 or so and you you felt that there's no other way of interpreting it the way that you you did? Well, there are any numerous ways that we could interpret a text wrongly, but that is the correct interpretation of the text is that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God," and that Word is Jesus. I mean, that is what John is meticulous to show us. So, that is the correct interpretation of the text.

Interesting. Um, do you do you not feel now that we are in the realm of the esoteric, the sort of unfathomable? We're talking about Jesus who pre-existed in the Old Testament, Christophanies as you put it, and now he's becomes a little baby in Mary's womb and so forth. Like, yeah.

Aren't we aren't we on the level of a bit of absurdity? I know that's a strong word, a very negative word, but...

Not absurdity. Definitely not absurdity. Uh, mystery, perhaps, sure. But it's right there in the text. So, does that mean we aren't awed by it? No, of course not. It's a It's a marvel. God became a man. God became a baby to help and pay for our sins.

But that's an indignation to to many monotheists. I mean I mean who cares? But but it's No. No. Well...

...Muslims and Jews. Sure. Yeah. Of course. Unitarians, it's an indignation. Yes. This is what this is what that the Apostle Paul says when he says God humbled himself, uh, the that Jesus humbled himself, taking the form of a slave. Yes, that's an indignation. That's the very point. While we were yet sinners, this is what Jesus Christ does for us. That's the exact point. This is why the Jews didn't accept it because they wanted a sign of power. The Greeks didn't accept it because they wanted philosophical wisdom. But Jesus is the wisdom and the power...

...from God for us. So yes, I agree that this feels absurd, but it is not actually absurd. It is what the text is teaching. So Alex has been up for a long time. We're going to have to wrap it up, but if you want to give a 30-second uh closing statement, go ahead.

Uh, thank you, Joel. I appreciate that. Was great. I thank you very much. I'm I'm good with that. Um, thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. I appreciate it. Your expertise and all that. It's been a pleasure. Thank you.

My pleasure. DB, come back.

Thanks for coming, DB.

I appreciate that. Thank you guys. All right.

Good night.

Bye.

By the way, if you see me laughing, I'm not laughing at anybody in particular. Usually, it's usually somebody in the chat, but uh just thought I'd say that.

Yeah.

All right. That was...

I'm not watching. Yes, that was a great conversation. Great conversation. Look, this is why we started with Sola Scriptura tonight because you always have to go back to the text. The text says what it says. Whether we think it's absurd, whether we think it's nuts, it doesn't really matter because I get things wrong all the time. Look, man, you and I have had all kind like we've had all kinds of discussions and you've taught me things and I've taught you things. At the end of the day, it's what does this book say?

And that holds sway for us. And um at least it should, I think. And we we don't always get that perfectly right. But God forbid that we have some belief that doesn't accord with scripture, you know, and if I do, I want somebody to show me because I need to change it.

Amen. All right. So, we have four guests, so I have three options before you.

We're not going late.

Okay. Well, that might cut out one option, then. Here's the other two. Uh, eight minutes a piece, rapid fire, or two for 15 minutes. You pick.

Uh, I want to get Milton Friedman back up here.

Milton's next. Either way, he's been in the longest. He just keeps coming in and out, but I spot. Okay, let's do let's let's attempt to do rapid fire because you and I both know if we try to do rapid fire, it probably won't work. So, we'll try to do rapid fire. We'll say who's after Milton Friedman.

Uh, born again Christian and then MS and then Brent.

I don't think we're going to get to MS and Brent. We can try. Sometimes people just want to come up real briefly, but um let's let's guarantee Milton Friedman and Born Again. Um, and uh Ah, Richie Torres.

Bro, thanks for the $5 except you gave it on my channel instead of the very one who your comp or did he give it on yours?

No, no, it's on yours.

Okay. He says you're looking like Eric Hernandez.

You know Eric Hernandez. I'm sure a lot of people watching this know who he is, too.

Yeah. I don't go on.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't know him personally either, and he probably would be upset considering I don't think he likes presuppositional apologetics that much. So he might be like, "No, that guy can't look at me. He he he argues." Tag.

Change your look, bro.

It belongs to Triple X now.

How do I stream this?

Yeah, it belongs to me now. You know who else? I It's better than um Who's the Muslim that people say I look like?

I don't know. Daniel Hakikaju, but this is Eric Hernandez.

Oh, yeah. For sure. Yeah. Yeah. That's your long lost twin.

Richie.

That's your long lost twin. I don't know much about Eric Hernandez at all. I mean, I've heard good things. I've heard great things, but I don't know anything about him.

And then this would be the Muslim reference.

Oh, wow. Yeah, that's you.

You know what you need to do is you need to book a debate as him.

Even when I have a beard. See, that's what I'm talking about. When the light hits it...

...that's how my beard looked in the daytime in real life.

Okay. So, you need to book a debate with with a Christian as him and then just uh totally um crash and burn and throw the debate and that'll go on his record. No, no, don't really do that. Look, we don't even know this guy. Don't don't bring this guy up here. I don't know who this guy is.

All right. Um...

All right. Milton Friedman.

No disrespect to anybody we just talked about. Okay. Oh, nothing but respect. I don't know. I'm not starting beef with these people. I don't know who they are.

All right. Let's let's get to it because I want to get you out of here in a timely manner.

All right. All right. Um Milton Friedman, what's up Milton? First of all, uh so we didn't realize that you were blocked and I couldn't see it at first.

And then Joel...

...that's why. So sorry about that.

Well, I was trying to tell you guys, but you know, you guys didn't want to believe, you know, so...

I know we didn't want to believe. We didn't want to believe much like you don't want to believe in Sola Scriptura. So, let's talk about that. Hey, hey, Milton Friedman. Last time. Last time you lost it. Last time you lost it. You got to You got to behave yourself today. Okay. You got to promise me you got to behave yourself. I'm giving you fair warning, man. Behave like a man. Behave like a gentleman.

Listen, let's just have a conversation, bro. Let's just have a conversation. That's literally what I'm saying.

All right.

Can I ask you a question, though? Cuz are you a Calvinist?

Of course.

Okay. Cuz I didn't realize you were a Calvinist um the last time we spoke. So, what's your best argument for rejecting Calvinism? Or or do you want to talk about Sola Scriptura?

Because Calvinism doesn't follow the 2,000 years of tradition.

Oh, I don't care about that. Show me from the Bible.

Show me from the Bible.

What do you mean show you from the Bible? What? There's no There's no teachings of Calvinism in the Bible.

Prove it. Calvinism sprang up 1,500 years after um the teachings of Christ.

Prove it. What do you mean prove it?

Prove it in the Bible.

Okay, let me ask you this. Let me let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Does Does God have free will?

Yes, God is free.

Free will. That's the question that I asked.

God is free.

I'm asking you, does God have free will? Yes or no?

Define free will. Does God have the ability to act on his own without any external constraints?

Yes.

You still there?

Oh, I'm sorry. Are So, great. Are we created in God's image?

Yes.

Okay, great. So, we're a reflection of God, right?

Correct.

Okay, great. So, one of those reflections would be we have free will, correct?

Wrong. Wrong. Okay, go ahead. Elaborate.

We don't have libertarian free will. Define free will.

Oh, you already defined it. No, we we are constrained by our nature. Those who are in the flesh, let me ask you this. Can someone who is in the flesh...

Listen, please. Can someone who is in the flesh with the mindset on the flesh...

...obey God's law?

Can somebody obey God's law?

or not obey God's law? You talking about free will?

>> No, I'm Yes, I'm asking you about about free will. Can a mind that is set on the flesh submit to God's law?

>> Absolutely.

>> Okay. What does Romans 8:7 say?

>> You tell me.

>> For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot. Do you want to change your answer?

>> No, I don't want to change my answer.

>> Then then you disagree with Paul, not me. I What are you talking about? How do you

>> First of all, how do you even know you have the right interpretation?

>> Read the words and you tell me what it says.

>> I could read the word. That doesn't matter. How do you know you have the right interpretations of the word?

>> Correct. Correct. My interpretation.

>> I'm reading what it says. What's my interpretation? What's my interpretation? Here's my interpretation.

>> Listen.

>> Listen to my interpretation.

>> The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot. That's my interpretation.

>> Okay. So, why would God say forgive them for they know not what they do?

>> Hold on a second. What's How is my That's not in this text. Explain how my interpretation of the text is wrong.

>> You saying that man does not have What are you trying to imply here? Like,

>> I'm not implying. I'm reading.

>> Okay. So, what are you interpreting from your reading? What do you Why even read if there's

>> Here's what I'm interpreting. You ready? Here's what I'm interpreting.

>> Okay. And I'm not being snarky here, but listen.

>> The mind the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God,

>> for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot. You said the mind set on the flesh can submit to God's law. I read to you what Romans 8:7 says where Paul says it cannot. That's my interpretation is that it cannot.

>> Okay. But that goes back to the question I originally asked you. Are we made in God's image? Yes or no?

>> We are. And we're sinful, fallen human beings. And this is why I'm a Calvinist because the Bible teaches that. Calvinism agrees with it. Calvinism teaches total depravity. Total depravity means that you're not as sinful as you could be, but every part of you, every faculty is tainted by sin. And that's why the mindset on the flesh cannot please God. It does not do what God commands. It cannot submit to God's law. Now, I read to you what Paul said. You said the opposite of what Paul said. Do you want to change your answer or do you want to continue disagreeing with Paul?

>> Dude, see this is this is why like the conversation the last time got exciting because you just go on these monologues, bro. Like what I'm trying to ask you is if God if if we are made in God's image, when did that restraint When that reflection, when did we lose our reflection of God?

>> Uh, Genesis 3.

>> Okay, read Genesis 3.

>> Genesis 3 is where the fall is. I'm not going to read the whole chapter, but in Genesis 3, Adam falls. Now, here's the thing. I want you to hear me on this. We don't lose the imo day. We still bear God's image. If that were not true, then there would be no capital punishment for sin. Okay? There would be, real quick, real quick. There would be no redemption. Okay? if we completely lost the image of God. But

>> the free will, the ability, the ability

>> um man

>> is not

>> let let me put it put it this way. Absolute freedom is not a communicable attribute of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that man has libertarian free will where he can choose against his nature. In fact, the Bible teaches the exact opposite. That's why I took you directly to Romans 8 because the Romans 8 is a great and clear passage that teaches that it's not only that the mindset on the flesh does not submit to God's law. It's that it cannot. Do you see that?

>> Milton, you still there? Oh, my bad. My bad. I'm having a problem because I'm trying to go back to the notes just to let you know. I'm not like a biblical dude like because as an orthodox dude the Bible is for lurggical purposes. It's not for us to just take outside like on date like we just take the word of God out on a date and like we swag it out. You know what I mean? So I'm trying to look at the my notes but um are you still there?

>> I'm still here. And that's the difference between you and me. That's the difference between you and me is I keep my Bible with me and I refer to it often and I refer to it always because the Bible is my standard.

>> Keep it with you. You're keeping this Bible with you that the Bible that my church canonized.

>> Hey, thanks a lot. You should use it.

>> What do you mean what I I should use it to do? What?

>> Well, for example, find out if the mindset on the flesh can please God and submit to his law.

>> How do you know you have the right interpretation when your church was established 1500 years after the church? My church was established 2,000 years ago in Matthew 18.

>> Calvinism 2000 years ago. Prove that.

>> I literally just did.

>> No, you didn't. Nobody was preaching Calvin. As a matter of fact, when you look up John Calvin, it strictly says that he broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. It says that literally like broke. Like if you look up John Calvin, it says he broke away from the Roman Catholic Church which has apostolic secession. Your church cannot go back into the apostolic secession of the church. So what are you talking about

>> Milton?

>> What?

>> I can I want to say this very respectfully because you told me you're not a Bible person.

>> The the Listen to me. Listen to me. The theology The the theology of Calvin is the same the sotiology of Calvin is the same sotiology of St. Augustine and the sotiology of St. Augustine is the same sotiology of the apostle Paul. That's why I took you to Romans and that's why I was very careful. I did not read you the dictate of a council. I did not read you my favorite Protestant commentator. I read you Paul.

>> So you're the one bringing Calvin. I'm reading Paul. Your church doesn't have a genealogy back to Paul, though.

>> Sure does.

>> Your church has a genealogy back to John John Calvin.

>> Sure it does. And you said, wait a No, wait a minute. By your own standard, by your own standard, Calvin came out of the Catholic Church. That's apostolic succession.

>> Let me You stop me in mid like sentence, bro. Like, let me

>> I apologize. Go ahead.

>> Okay, great. So your church's genealogy doesn't go back to the apostles. There's no apostle that John Calvin's church goes back to

>> at all. They weren't teaching Calvinism back in um the apost the apostolic times.

>> Jesus taught it.

>> Jesus taught What are you talking about? Jesus taught that. So Jesus wasn't a universal um Christ. He wasn't universal.

>> Jesus is the universal Christ. Jesus taught Calvinism. We read about it in John 6:44. Romans, don't cut me off if you don't want me cutting you off, sir.

>> That's all right. John 6:44, Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." The Apostle Paul teaches uh Calvinism, if you want to call it that. I don't. I mean, I don't I don't care if you call it that or not, in Ephesians 1 3-14. Now, listen. I'm going to tell you this, and I don't mean any disrespect by it. I'm going to I'm going to just tell you this straight up, then I'm going to let you say your piece.

>> The reason why you don't know that Calvinistic doctrine is taught in the Bible is because you've believed a misrepresentation of history. You think that Calvin invented Calvinism. He didn't. The Protestant Reformation was a retrieval of biblical sotiology and theology.

>> A retrieval from where? What were they retrieving it from?

>> From scripture.

>> From scripture. And who canonized the scriptures?

>> Uh the church of God. The Holy Spirit.

>> The church of God. Right. And then the church.

>> The Holy Spirit working through the churches. Yeah. Not your church. Not your church.

>> Oriental. You're oriental Orthodox, right?

>> Absolutely, baby.

>> Okay. So, you say that your church canonized it?

>> Absolutely.

>> Because I could track my church back into St. Mark.

>> Listen. Stop. Just real quick, I can trace my church back to St. Mark who was called the son himself by Peter. I can trace my church back to the apostles. You can't

>> you about done?

>> Bobby bag, bro. He's done. He's done.

>> Are Milton, are you done?

>> No, you're cooked, bro. Go ahead. try to trace Calvinism back to

>> Milton. Milton,

>> what?

>> I I wanted I wanted to give you a hearing. Me pausing. I'm not pausing because I'm speechless. I'm pausing to give you a chance to actually make your argument because at no point in this conversation have you even remotely attempted to disprove the verses that I shared with you, which you straight up contradicted. Milton, you contradicted the Apostle Paul. I asked you if a mindset in the flesh can can obey God's law. You said no. Paul said yes. I read you Paul's words. And you said you didn't like my interpretation. Then you went on something about how your church canonized scripture. Guess what?

>> A canon was formed by the Holy Spirit working through the universal church, a collection. Milton, I gave you an opportunity and I waited.

>> Said, bro, I said you have

>> Milton. I gave you an opportunity and now I got to mute you. Now, you said that your church, the Eastern or the Oriental Orthodox Church, in particular, canonized the church. And yes, I do have Milton muted right now, guys. I did give Milton an opportunity to say his piece, did I not? And he used that to try to mock me and say that I was speechless and that I was cooked. But now, I'm going to set Milton straight. I'm going to teach him something. He says that the that the Oriental Orthodox Church is responsible for the canon. If that were true, and it's not, but if it were true, then Milton indictes himself by saying he's not a Bible guy, and he only uses the Bible for lurggical purposes. He is a self-proclaimed nonBible person. And yet, he wants to try to debate someone who is a Bible person on what the Bible actually says. Milton is in no condition to do this, not because I'm super smart, but because he doesn't know what the scripture teaches. He doesn't know about John 6:44. He doesn't know about Ephesians chapter 1. He doesn't know about Romans chapter 8 or Romans chapter 9 or Romans chapter 10. He doesn't know about these verses because his church doesn't encourage him to read scripture. It says, "Trust me, bro. I'll tell you what the Bible says." But the problem is Milton has been sold the bill of goods. He thinks that because he can supposedly trace his current bishop back via apostolic succession, he doesn't need to know what the Bible says. And he thinks that plainly reading the scripture is taking an interpretation. But that gives the game away for the Eastern Orthodox. I mean the oriental orthodox church because if you have to disagree with someone who is plainly reading scripture because you don't agree with his interpretation but he's not interpreting and he's just reading it then your church interprets scripture wrongly because scripture is true and man's word is false when it contradicts with scripture every time all day long give me God's word above man's word all day. So, no, I'm not cooked. I love God's word and I'm going to stick with it. And if I'm wrong, you're going to have to show me from the word of God. Period. Milton, I'm gonna unmute you. Take 30 seconds.

>> Okay, great. So, you just said that. You just said that. Who preserved the word? Was it man or who preserved the word? Was it man or not?

>> This is your 30 second closing.

>> Oh, I got to close now, bro. Whatever, man.

>> You're not your bro, Milton.

>> Yeah, I know you're not my bro. So, who preserved the word?

>> Was it man?

>> It was the Holy Spirit.

>> The Holy Spirit. You just grant that? How do you know?

>> This is your closing, Milton. You got like 10 seconds left.

>> How do you know you have the Holy Spirit?

>> Because I believe in Jesus.

>> Okay. And so does Muslims. They believe in Jesus, too. They believe the prophet, too. They believe he was a prophet, too. Why you laughing? Do Muslims not believe that Jesus was a prophet? Yes or no? This is your closing. Are you done?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Whatever, bro. You so scared.

>> Thanks, Milton.

>> Have a good one, Milton.

>> Thanks, Milton. All right, let's just go to Ephesians real quick. I'm going to give my closing now. In Ephesians 1:13, it says, "In him, you also when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit." Muslims don't have the Holy Spirit. They don't believe in Jesus. They don't. The word of truth is not that Jesus was a mere man who was a prophet of Allah. Milton doesn't know that because Milton doesn't read the Bible. This is an indictment against every movement that tells its followers that the Bible is for lurggical purposes only. You might as well consider it an ornament. You might as well put it on your mantle and never read it. We do not take man's word for what the Bible says. We read it. We believe it. We obey it. I don't grant myself the Holy Spirit and I don't need Milton's church to tell me what the Bible says. I can open it up and I can read what it says. And according to the Bible, when I believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, when I heard the word of truth, which is the gospel, which Milton's church doesn't teach, not if Milton is any representative, when I believe the gospel, I received the Holy Spirit. And I want to invite anyone who's listening to this. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was buried and he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. He was seen by eyewitnesses including Peter, John, and James as well as the rest of the 12 as well as 500 at a single time. And Jesus Christ has ascended to the right hand of the father. And Jesus is literally giving out salvation and eternal life to everyone who believes in him as savior and lord and receives him as savior and lord. And I invite you, if you're watching this right now and you've been on the fence, maybe you've been watching these streams for months, maybe even over a year now, and you've heard the gospel message, but you've never trusted in Jesus Christ. Let today be the day. Milton, I say the same to you. Repent. Turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. And then I'll be your bro because we'll have the same heavenly father.

All right, that one went for a little bit. That was good. He doesn't take the Bible out on dates. Okay. Unreal. All right. Do we have time for one more or you got to go?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Let's do uh because we did say we do, too. Born again Christian.

>> We'll do a fast one.

>> All right.

>> All right. Born again Christian. Are you a born again Christian?

>> Yes, I am.

>> Where are you calling from?

>> Sydney, Australia.

>> Have you called in before? I don't think so.

>> You didn't call in last week and the week before?

>> I don't think so.

>> Did you or not?

>> I don't think so.

>> Tell the truth.

>> Are you saying all Australians sound the same?

>> No, I'm saying this Australian in particular has called in twice before and every time he calls in is under a different persona.

>> How so?

>> What's your argument tonight? Okay. So, my argument is that Christians

>> guy

>> would rather Exactly.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Christians would rather follow Paul than Jesus.

>> You're a born again Christian, right?

>> Absolutely.

>> So, you're you're inconsistent. You undercut your own argument. The debate is over.

>> How so?

>> If you're a born again Christian, you would believe that uh Christ apostle was telling the truth. You're not a born again Christian. You def you defeated your own argument.

>> What does Christian mean? The debate is over. It means Christ. That's right. Follower of Christ. Correct. So, you follow Christ's words.

>> Little Christ is what it means. Little Christ is

>> Yeah. Yeah. But you follow Christ's words, not words that were spoken by somebody who said they follow Christ. That's a big difference. And think about this. If Christians are really following No. No. Absolutely not. Because if Christians are following Christ, they have his words. Why do they need Paul?

>> Why do you lie when you try to come on to the stream? Don't you know lying is a sin?

>> Who said I'm lying? I say you're lying.

>> Last time I

>> You said you never called in before. You said that last week as well.

>> Why lie to get onto the base stream? Why don't you just say who you are? You said that you were the first time you called in, you said that you were a Jew. That those were your words. You said, "I'm a Jew." Let me tell you one thing that a Jewish person does not call himself is a Jew. That's number one. Secondly, you use the name you use the name servant of Yah. Let me tell you what a Jewish person would not call himself. Servant of Yah. He would say servant of Hashem. So you're not Jewish. You're not a Christian. And you have them before. And you by your own admission have defeated your own argument.

>> No. Incorrect. Because the whole not saying Yahweh's name is part of Jewish tradition. It's not actually a biblical thing. It's Jewish tradition.

>> So you lied.

>> No. I know it's not a biblical thing.

>> Exactly.

>> You lied to get on the screen. Do you have

>> I did have an argument. That's what I said. Jesus Christ. You know what? Born again Christian, first of all, you're lying in your very name. You lied twice to get on here. We're not going to do this. We're going to skip you. We're going to go to somebody else. Next time, tell the truth. You're not going to lie to get on here. I'm not going to I'm not going to honor that guy. I knew it was him, by the way. As soon as I saw Born Again Christian, it was too

>> He's such a racist. He just thinks all Australians insane.

>> I know this guy. I could tell him right away. I knew I knew when I saw the name. I knew when I saw

>> You had an idea last week, but you let it go. You're like, "Whatever. I'm not going to impress him."

>> Exactly. I had an idea. And now he's lying again. We're not going to honor him over somebody else. Do you have time to do one more?

>> That's fun. Yeah. Yeah. Let's do it. Um

>> be somebody else.

>> So, um All right. Here's a Gnostic for you.

>> Okay.

>> I believe so. You said you believe in narcissism.

>> I do. Can you hear me?

>> All right. Yeah. Good. Good to meet you, ma'am.

>> Good to meet you, too.

>> Okay. My first time debating agnostic. Um, tell me, what's what's your best argument fornosticism?

>> Well, first I'd like to ask you, what denomination of Christianity do you follow?

>> Wait, wait, real quick. What's your best argument fornosticism? I I I don't care. I'm a Protestant, Evangelical, Calvinist, New Covenant theologian, Baptist.

>> Okay. If God is all good and all knowing, why does he allow bad things like the Second World War, the First World War, 9/11, all these terrible things to happen? Mass suffering.

>> He has a morally sufficient reason for doing so. What is your best argument fornosticism?

>> Again, God is not all good and all know it.

>> That's not an argument for nasticism. That's an atheistic argument.

>> That's a that's a logical problem of evil. It's it's undercut by God as a sufficient reason for for all that he allows. What's your best argument for narcissism? I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but we have a very limited amount of time and this is my first.

>> Okay. The book of Enoch, the secret book of John, secret book of Peter, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the um you know these the texts that were removed from the canon Bible that were declared heresy but are proven true.

>> Okay. Uh what is truth? How do you test a a a verse? Uh sorry, how do you test a book for truth? Well, how do you test the bi the canonized Christian Bible full of lies for truth?

>> Every verse in the Bible has been mistranslated over thousands of years by different people all with their own agendas. Like for example, King James, he removed the word tyrant from the Bible. He did want us criticize.

>> I don't use the King James. Do you have a better argument?

>> I follow the Ethiopian Bible. But yeah, that's um

>> Hold on a second. Oh, he uh he went off camera. Um yay.

>> Okay, I have my Ethiopian Bible.

>> Why y the deayo send a bunch of plagues to kill people and then uh kill the two son two nephews of Moses?

>> Hold on a second.

>> You believe the Ethiopian Bible?

>> I believe it's mostly true.

>> Okay.

>> It has its flaws. Now, we're back to the question of how do you judge which sections of scripture? By the way, the Ethiopian Bible is not e is not gnostic. The Ethiopian Bible is Christian. They just have extra books.

>> They have the same 66 books as I have in my Protestant Bible.

>> Enoch. But let me ask you, why not nephews of Moses?

>> Um because they offered strange fire on the altar and God specifically told them not to in his law. Do you know that the the Geneva Bible has the exact same 66 books as the um the core of the Ethiopian Bible? And Enoch is not a Gnostic document. Enoch is not a document.

>> It literally is. It reveals hidden knowledge.

>> No, no. Hear me on this. Gnosticism is a specific movement. There's protonasticism in the first century, butnosticism flowered in the second and third centuries. The um book of Enoch was written in the second temple period, the Herodian period, which is pre-Christian. So, so we're talk that's historically an anacronistic anacronistic. Say that five times fast to call the book of Enoch a Gnostic document. It's not. And it's not hidden. By the way, the book of Enoch was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes had the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch

>> Yeah, it was preserved in the scrolls we found in a cave.

>> Yeah, but Jude quotes from the book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was a well-known book in the first century and in the pre-Christian era. It but it was not it just wasn't considered scripture.

>> Okay. Well, they hid the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. They had the Gospel of Judas. They hid the secret book of John, the secret book of Peter.

>> Okay. So, now you're getting into some actual Gnostic books which are pseudopigraph. They're not actually they're they're falsely attributed. So now

>> yay literally possessed Judas and made him sell out Christ. You said you said that you hold to the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is a pre-Christian document. Now you're talking about the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel the So tell me about the these books, you know, because your worldview is incoherent right now. You're trying to splice together second temple Judaistic books um like the book of Enoch, which is pre-Christian, and you're trying to somehow mishmash that in with these pseudopigraph books from the when when were they written? second, third, fourth century,

>> first century.

>> Okay.

>> And specifically the gospel of Mary Magdalene. She was the most important of the apostles, of the disciples of Christ.

>> She was not an apostle.

>> She was. And don't let the Catholic Church tell you that she was an apostle. She was a follower of Christ. She was the most important one.

>> Okay. Where in the Ethiopian Bible does it say that because that's what you follow.

>> It doesn't say that in the Ethiopian Bible because it's a flawed text.

>> So that is correct. You told me earlier that you follow the Ethiopian Bible. I've now

>> I said the Ethiopian Bible is the most accurate translation, but still has said you follow it. You said that you follow it.

>> I didn't say that I followed it. I said that I approve of it. It's a

>> I'm pretty sure

>> regardless the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Judas prove to us that you know just like why is there so much evil and suffering in the world? And you can say, "Oh, well, it's Satan." But Satan can't do a damn thing without the all the way off letting him do it.

>> First of all, don't swear on my stream. That's number one. You didn't know that, but now I'm warning you. Don't do it again, please.

>> Uh, number two, you've got two different arguments going on here. The problem of evil is already answered. I explained that to you. God has a morally sufficient reason for all that he does, decrees,

>> and allows.

>> What is the morally sufficient reason for allowing the Holocaust to happen? We don't we don't know the morally sufficient reason for every single instance. But God we know that God is good and God is totally sovereign. The Ethiopian Bible teaches us that as does the the Protestant Bible

>> servants of Yel Bayoth like you know Shirley Phelps Roper the Westboro Baptist Church Jim Jones these servants of the demiurge are trying to make us you know the we're we're literal slaves. We are kept enslaved.

>> I'm sorry. Are we talking about the Bible or cult leaders? What in the world are you talking about? Respectfully, I'm trying to I'm I'm you you're changing the goalpost here, man. I mean, respectfully, you've been jumping from the Ethiopian Bible to the book of Enoch to pseudopigraphal text from the you say from the first century, and now you're talking about Jim Jones. What does any of this have to And the problem of evil, the logical problem of evil is incoherent. It it assumes that the omni benevolent, omnimpetent God could not have a morally sufficient reason for all that he does, decrees, or allows. But that's exactly what the Bible teaches he does have. So that's an incoherent argument.

>> Why do the servants Why do the servants of the demiurge the the Spanish Inquisition, the concistadors, the crusaders, why do they commit mass amounts of evil in his name? Like Jim Jones, Jonestown

>> because they're evil church.

>> First of all, that's a loaded question fallacy because they're not servants of the demiurge. You're importing your own gnostic tenants into church history, which is that's a loaded question. I don't grant the existence of the demiurge. That's number one. Number two, they don't claim to be the followers of the demiurge. So, you're not going to find anything about that in their writings. Third, third, third,

>> the uh the reason why they do evil things is because they're evil. I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't stand by the Roman Catholic persecution of my people, the Christians, and the Protestants and the the Waldenzians and the um the Bohemian Christians. I I don't stand by that. us first.

>> What?

>> They persecuted us first, the Gnostics.

>> That doesn't make your church true or your religion true. You've got to show me

>> we are older than the We are older than Catholicism. The Cathars are older than Catholicism. The Sephians are older than Catholicism.

>> Your your theology has to come from the Bible. This is what the Gnostics originally.

>> We were the first

>> is that. So if you're the first, you should be able to ground what you're saying in the 27 books of the New Testament and the 39 books of the Old Testament. And you've already shown

>> the Bible from the reverse perspective.

>> It's from the demigr perspective and not the the Monad or Sophia.

>> Prove it.

>> Peace be upon her.

>> Prove it.

>> Because it's literally it is literally okay. The three religions, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, they're pitted against each other by the demiurs despite believing in the same God and believing in the same four religions.

>> Why do you think there's like right now there's is these, you know, these Satanists in Israel, they're fighting against, you know, Satanists in Iran.

>> Prove this.

>> And they're being and they're both, you know,

>> like they're both Satanists.

>> What's your

>> They both love Anton Ly.

>> What's your argument? Do you love Anton Levy?

>> No, I love Jesus Christ. What's your actual argument?

>> Well, I love Jesus Christ.

>> I think you don't love Jesus Christ for the right reasons.

>> Do you have an argument?

>> I do. And I've been explaining my argument to people.

>> No, you've been articulating your position because you've been saying your position. You've not been giving any argument. The Bible is internally consistent. It's self- authenticating and it gives the only coherent worldview for grounding the laws of logic which you would need if you were to ever make an argument. the absolute moral obligations which we all experience wrong to do evil and you're not going to be able to ground those things using

>> if it's internally coherent why does yayov keep flip-flopping on everything like him hardening the heart of the pharaoh so he persecutes the

>> yov the demiurge

>> no no no I'm talking about the bible there's no demiurge

>> he keeps hardening I'm when I refer to Yahweh I'm referring to yov he hardened the heart of the pharaoh to keep persecuting the Jewish people.

>> If you have to misrepresent someone's view, you're no longer doing an internal critique.

>> I'm not misrepresenting your view. I'm calling Yahweh Yahov as per my religion.

>> Uh that would be an external critique. You just said it yourself. Per your religion. Do an internal critique of the Christian worldview.

>> I have.

>> Not if you're calling the internal perspective.

>> Well, from an internal perspective, and I used to be very a very adamant Southern Baptist. I just

>> Well, if you were if you were a Southern Baptist, were you born again?

>> I was born again and then I learned that I was being lied to my whole life.

>> So, you weren't born again.

>> I was I genuinely there was a time that I, you know, turned away from the church. I mean, I was, you know, I mean,

>> you're not going to like this. after I came back to the church and renounced my homosexuality.

>> Did you Listen, it sounds like you've been through a lot, okay? And I I I think in some way I think you're searching for truth and I'm going to tell you this. The truth that you're looking for is found in the 66 books of the Bible.

>> The demi really you want to know why I turned

>> real quick. Okay. Yes. Yes. Tell me. Go ahead. Because we we have to wrap up. I told Alex we'd be done by mid

>> several several things but the Christian the tr the Christian faith it claims to hate the sinner I mean hate the sin love the sinner but I was not given that my whole life I was you know I mean I've suffered with gender dysphoria my whole life I was not given that love and respect and then once I found narcissism it explained why I suffered with gender dysphoria because I'm a feminine spirit trapped in the masculine body trapped by the demi urge So yeah, while I'm not acting on that, I suffer greatly gender dysphoria. And you know, the reason for that is because I'm a divine spark trapped in a mortal body. Same as you.

>> Okay, listen. I want

>> I was the wrong spark trapped in the wrong body.

>> Okay. So listen, I want to sympathize with what you're saying, but I'm not going to empathize with it because and I want to say this very respectfully to you as a person, but frankly, you joined a debate stream and I'm going to tell you sometimes the the most loving thing you can do for someone is to tell them the unvarnished straightup truth. And I think that you're calling in here for the truth. So, I'm going to tell you this truth and I want you to listen and I hope that you'll accept it. God does not make mistakes when it comes to gender.

>> I'm not saying that. I'm saying

>> real quick, real quick. I I'm I'm pausing, but I'm not done

>> speaking. I want to really make this clear. The God who made you knows you intimately and has allowed you to experience these struggles. And I I get you're talking about evil in the world. I I understand that. I wrestle with these things too. But the God who made you is good and he's put this he's allowed you to have this existential dread in your soul. The Bible says that God has placed eternity in our hearts yet so that we cannot know the the future from the past. We cannot know what is going to happen tomorrow. God has placed within us this desire to be reconciled with the almighty eternal God. And yet we can never get there on our own through rituals, through nosis. The Bible teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of nosis. And the Bible says that all the treasures of wisdom and nosis knowledge are hidden in Christ. The answers to your gender dysphoria is not going further down the Gnostic rabbit trail. It's in repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand you grew up Southern Baptist and it sounds like you had a terrible experience. I don't vouch for that terrible experience. I don't know what happened. Okay? But I want to tell you this in sympathy and in love. You will find true freedom when you come to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance and faith. I can't force you to do that. The Holy Spirit has you. But narcissism is not the way. It is totally indefensible. Jesus Christ is the way. Jesus is the truth and Jesus is the light.

>> Joel, I tried that. I spent years bent over my bed crying and praying for God to make me stop liking them. For God to make me not feel gender dysphoria like I do. I spent probably about a decade from the time I was 10 to probably the time I was 17 and I'm I've just turned 20 now.

>> Oh, well, I mean it was a month ago, but thank you.

>> Well, have you believe I

>> I spent a long time praying and crying and praying to be delivered from this.

>> Okay.

>> And nothing happened. It only made it worse. Hell, I even punished myself for every time I thought of, you know, thought of men. I took a pin needle and I stuck it in my arm.

>> I tried and I prayed and I cried and

>> nothing happened. Nothing changed. My mental health got worse.

>> Okay, listen. I I hear you, okay? And again, I want to tell you I sympathize with you and I have compassion for you. I genuinely mean that. Okay? If it sounds like I'm harsh, it's not. It's just we're this is an urgent thing. I want you to hear this. The way that you judge a religion is not based on your emotions. It's not based on um your your it's not based purely on the um emotional response that you have to your experiences. Religion is true because it's objectively true or it's objectively false. Nosticism is not objectively true. Now, do I know why God didn't answer those prayers? No, I don't. And I don't claim to know. I don't know you. I've never even seen you. I've never and I'm not your pastor. Okay? But what I want to tell you is this. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. He conquered sin and there is freedom in him. And I want to tell you what else too.

Sometimes God allows us to bear a cross to make us stronger. But he promises to be with us. That's 2 Corinthians 1:es 4-7. I believe God will comfort you with the comfort that he gives to you. He will get he will then allow you to comfort others. Some of the mo the biggest blessings in my own life have been prayers that God has either said no to or God has said God has said wait to. And I'm telling you this, I've seen my son go through cancer. I've seen my wife go through cancer. I saw my other son have a life-threatening infection. I have experienced hardship. And by the way, the older you get, the hardship doesn't get easier, it gets harder. But Jesus says f take up your cross, deny yourself, and follow him. Jesus is the way. Jesus is the straight and narrow gate. And it's not easy to follow Jesus, but his burden is light. It's not easy in the indulge yourself.

>> It's just

>> but he is light.

>> Go on.

>> It's just we believe two different things about Christ. You I believe that you know obviously I believe he rose from the dead. He was

>> not there still.

>> Okay. There's different variations of it. I believe he did rise from the dead. Some variations believe he didn't or soul was crucified instead. Those variations are wrong. Okay.

>> He suffered and died on the cross because he wanted to bring the fire of knowledge to human because he wanted to teach us that

>> everything he wanted to teach us how to live and that's essentially you know be decent people

>> and to love thy neighbor to actually you know to follow the fruits of the spirit but in a biblical sense

>> you're mixing Christianity with you're mixing Christianity withnosticism you can't pick and choose from the Bible like that my friend you can't you can't say you know love your neighbor is good, but Jesus didn't die for our sins. You can't say that. That's that's

>> that's cafeteria Christianity. Okay, that's not what

>> sin is like there's good and there's evil, but there's not a point system for how good and bad you are. You know, I mean, I guess you can say karma is, but that's more like universal thing. There's no good and bad points for, you know, whether or not because I believe that when we die, either we achieve nosis or we get reincarnated and sent back to this hell.

>> That's not what the Bible teaches.

>> Well, I mean, early Christian texts that are not considered Gnostic, but were considered, you know, not canned at some point. Tree of life, St. Michael pulling souls and putting them in mortal bodies.

>> That's fanfiction, dude.

>> That's fanfiction. That's not apostolic. We look, you mentioned the Ethiopian Bible. I've got my Geneva Bible here. This is from 1599. The Ethiopian Bible uh dates back, I believe, to the 1200s. Neither Bible teaches that. Okay. We don't we don't go with the fanfiction uh pseudo books.

>> How is it how do we know it's fanfiction?

>> Because we know the books that were written either by the apostles or by their associates. Okay? We know the ones that go back to the first century. To be considered canon, it has to be apostolic. It has to be Catholic. It has to be orthodox. It has to be used by all the churches and it has to be consistent with the previous revelation. God does not contradict himself. That's why the New Testament canon only includes those books which is which are not only apostolic in origin but also are consistent with the Old Testament. That's why the Apostle Paul when he would go into a new city, Athens or um uh uh uh Thessaloni or Berea, he would teach them from the Old Testament and show them from the Old Testament that Jesus is the Messiah because Old and New Testament are completely consistent. Gnosticism, um pseudopigraph books, book of Enoch might contain grains of truth, but that's only in so far as they agree with the canonical books. You can't pick and choose and be a cafeteria Christian like this. And I I'm I'm telling you, you've mentioned you're mentioning um these these books that have nothing to do with each other. You even mentioned karma. Karma has nothing to do with scripture at whatsoever. It's a completely different metaphysics, completely different religion. I look, I get it. You're searching for truth. You've had a hard time. I'm I'm telling you what God wants you to know is to repent to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Bible even the can like the way they the Catholic Church considered which books were can and which it was the council of Ny and that's why book Enoch was left out of the Bible.

>> No the council canonical

>> I'm sorry to cut you off the go ahead go ahead go ahead I want to make I want to let you

>> it may not have been the council of ny but whatever they said essentially that's why the book Enoch is not canonical but is considered divinely inspired

>> other books I consider them. No, it's not divinely inspired. It's not considered divinely inspired. And it was never considered canonical. And that I remember it's a pre-Christian text. So that was settled by the time of uh the the apostles or John the Baptist coming on the scene. Jesus never once affirms the um the book of Enoch. It was not considered Moses, the prophets, or the writings. Jude quotes from a portion of it. Um second Peter um alludes to some of the theology in it. And I would even affirm that there are parts of it that are authentic or at least true. But the book as a whole was never considered canonical. Um it was not written by Moses or the prophets or um it was not considered wisdom literature. It it just simply wasn't. And so I say this very respectfully. You've got a lot more to learn about these things. But

>> but there it's just not the case that this this was ever considered a canonical book. And the Council of Na had nothing to do with the canon. Go back and look. I've got videos on the Think Institute channel.

>> I'll check it out.

>> Yeah, check them out. Check I've got videos on the canon. I've got videos on the Council of Nika and I've got videos on the Early Church. Please look them up because I want you to see this. You're you're taking things that are false and you're mixing them in with truth. And that, you know, two wrongs don't make a right.

Another point I wanted to make. Does the Trinity make sense to you? three a tripartite god that's also not mono uh not polytheistic but is

>> but he's not trithe he's he's not uh tripartite I would never use the word tripartite I would say triune or trinitarian tripartite means that there are three divisions of god or three parts of god and that's actually a heresy

>> well that's why I mean it it just out of 31 does not make it doesn't seem logical doesn't Makes sense. And I know you're saying, "Oh, well, he's beyond the metaphysics of the universe. He can be three people at once."

>> I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that.

>> But I believe that there's this Sophia, the Monad, the Christ, the liberator, and Yalda.

>> Yeah. That's just not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that there is one name, Yahweh, and that that one name is shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that one name, Yahweh, does not share his authority or his glory with anyone else. So, the Bible absolutely does teach the Trinity. And um it's something Look, I want to say this. You gave up too soon. I'm sorry. I know it was seven years of your life, you gave up too soon. You You need to study these things more, man. You need to study. Go look up a bunch of Wes Huff videos if you really want to know about um you know, the cannon and things like that. Look up James White. Like I said, I've got videos on it. Um but you gave up too soon, man. Take up your cross and follow the Lord Christ. I have Look, I've looked into it. I found a community of people who believe in narcissism. They keep explaining these concepts to me. They keep

>> You need to give that up. You need to give that up. You need to give It doesn't make sense.

>> They've helped me understand

that I shouldn't hate myself in the way I feel.

Listen, you should hate your sin because God hates your sin. But God loves you enough to send me to tell you this. There is freedom, healing, and hope and eternal life in the Lord Jesus Christ. This isn't about your gender dysphoria is not who you are, man. Don't identify yourself by your sexual attraction or your gender identity. That is not who you are. You are a man made in the image of God. And God wants you to live like it. God wants you to be a man. He wants you to live like a man.

Now, do I know what he's going to do in your life? No, I don't. But I do know this. He created you to be a man. And you need to submit to him as a man and to trust him even if you don't know how he's going to solve this for you. You need to trust him that he can. And even if you never experience true resolution in this particular area of your life, you can have peace, hope, and eternal life in Jesus Christ. And that you can take to the bank.

And I don't want you. Well, he's not the one who stop. He's not the one who stopped me from hurting soul. The effect stopped me from that. That the devil can provide temporary healing as long as you go to hell. That's what he wants is for you to go to hell.

The devil is the servant of God. He can literally not do anything without God letting him do it. It says that in the Bible.

So, I want I want you to hear me on this. The devil is God's ape. The devil is God's dog. Don't listen to the dog. Listen to the master. The devil is evil. He's the enemy of your soul. God sent me to tell you this that you need to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. He's the master and you need to give your life to the Lord Jesus Christ, not the devil. The devil wants you. Here's what the devil wants. He wants you to be placid enough and at peace enough so that you go to hell. That's what he wants. And if you continue down this gnostic road, you will go to hell. Make no mistake. And I don't want that for you. Repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Listen, man. We've got to we've got we've got to wrap it up.

Okay. One more thing before I go.

Okay.

Okay. So the devil specifically like I said cannot do anything without God telling him to without like for example that story where the the demiurgent the devil just tortured a guy you know killed his family tortured him ruined his life and said you know if this guy forsakes me you know uh you you win or whatever and you know like he he still worshiped the demiurge but was like had his entire life which was you know over by. Hey, what did I say about swearing?

Oh, sorry about that.

Please don't do it again. All right, listen. Um I I want to make sure my kids can watch this. Okay, that's my that's my motive for saying that. Uh so listen, um plus you're going to get us uh strikes on the uh the YouTube algorithm. I we can't have any profile. Okay, so listen. Yeah. Um uh if you're talking about the book of Job where the Lord allowed Satan to test Job, God is in complete control of that situation. And God blesses Job doubly at the end of that book. Job ends up with not 10 kids, but 20 kids. 10 are in heaven. By the way, 20 now are in heaven if they were all believers. And Job is in heaven as well. Job is the big winner in that. The devil is the big loser. That's a great book for the biblical worldview. Has nothing at all to do with nastism. To try to isogetically read nosticism back into Job respectfully, it's a it's just completely not there. It's just.

I'm just saying he had his life ruined and that the devil came restored doubly. And res. You're not just saying that because you have to read the actual book. He had his life restored doubly. You know what that book is about? It's about a man who fully trusted in God, who who trusted him even in the midst of his afflictions, who proclaimed that even if his flesh were would be destroyed, that he would be resurrected and would see his redeemer standing on the earth and would see God with his eyes. That book is a christological book. Jesus Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the book of Job. If you miss that, you miss the entire purpose of the book of Job.

Listen, man, you got to repent. Maybe I'll come up here another time and we can discuss this again if you're fine with that. I'll try to watch my language.

Maybe. Thank you. Good talking with you.

All right. Great night.

Hope you have a great night.

Thanks a lot. Bye bye.

All right, we went half an hour over. Sorry, man.

No, no worries. Um that was that was a really good conversation.

It was. It was. And that just goes to show you when you ask questions, you get down to the heart of what's really going on.

And and you these are real people we're having these conversations with. These aren't just bots, you know, most of them. Uh but uh but no, I I I genuinely hope was that Wasteland Games. I hope that he will. Let me just say I hope the Lord continues to work on them because it's clear that he is. So we got some super chats though, right?

Yes, sir. Um we have Richie Joel question. What is the difference between the Bible we have today and the Ethiopian Bible that has more books?

Okay. Uh the Bible we have today with the 66 books, these are the books that are considered canonical by both the Old Covenant Jewish people and the New Testament body of Jesus Christ, the church. Um the Ethiopian Bible has additional books. They have the apocryphal books which the Catholics and Orthodox would call the deuterocanonical or at least the Catholics would. Not sure about the Orthodox. Um, but they also have other books as well. Actually, this version that I have here has a total of 781 different books, which is a lot of books. Okay. Um, but the Bible as you pick it up, like if you read your CSB, your ESV, your NIV, your LSB, that's going to be your 66 books that are actually breathed out by God, that are actually canonical. Obviously, if you hold to one of these other traditions, you're going to disagree with that. But Richie, you know me. I'm a Baptist and I'm a Protestant and an evangelical. So, that's the answer you're going to get. Um, but um but yeah, I I love my Ethiopian Bible. I I think it's fascinating. There's a lot of very interesting stuff in here. A lot of it is edifying, but um in terms of the standard, we stick with the 66 inspired texts.

Boom.

Thank you for the $5, Richie.

Thank you so much, brother. Great work tonight, gentlemen. God bless.

Raiders fan.

Raiders fan. Another $5. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Um I just uh I just press buttons. So that's all I do back here.

Yeah, but you don't see me pressing those buttons. I would I would uh I wouldn't even know which but which buttons to press. I don't even know how to unmute myself.

When you covered for me on uh Jeremia with Jeremiah on our show, that was hilarious. Uh he wasn't doing something. You were like, I don't know. Alex usually does.

We're both like Alex does this stuff. We don't know.

That was funny. Uh, and Mitchell 360 for the $20. Thank you very much, Mitchell.

$20 holla. Thanks so much. Hey, man. Mitchell, if you're still watching, I I owe you um a uh either a text or an email. I know that. I've been thinking long and hard about how to respond. And um please don't think that my lack of responding means I don't have an answer for you. I do, but I need to consult and I'm trying to figure out what my answer should be. So, appreciated your question very much and I will get back to you. But thank you so much for the $20 holla.

Mitchell's a good guy.

Great guy.

Good guy. Great guy. We used to say this thing in high school. We say good kid. Good kid.

Good kid. Good kid. Yeah.

Yeah. We said that kind of stuff, you know, back when I was in school, you know.

Yeah. Back uh the one room school Vietnam War.

Yeah, it was good. It was good. I had flat feet. I couldn't go fight.

Um listen, man. We got to get out of here. We got to get out of here. This is This is uh really uh we've gone way over. So, I'm sorry.

It was a great stream, though.

Great stream. Totally agree. Um, we did not hit our goal, did we?

We didn't really set a goal.

Yes, we did. I set a goal. Yeah.

100 bucks.

Well, I didn't No, none of us talked about it.

Oh, that's true.

Uh, we got to 40.

Right on. And And listen, that's just a sign. Thank you guys for the $40 $40 hollas. Uh, we appreciate you. And um you know th this I'll tell you what the think squad the people who join these debates and the people who comment we've got the best the best people I think come on this stream. I really genuinely for the most part other than the occasional lying Australian. We have the best people. And even even the lying Australian I've I've already debated him twice. I and I would like him fine if he just didn't lie to get on.

Even bother lying. Well, though.

How about that? He was convicted. He's like, I don't think so. I don't think so. But were you Was it you? I don't think so. Come on. And then he's just like, you're right. He just totally dropped the facade. And then like and then I'm I'm calling him out about how like Jewish people wouldn't really say that. And he's like he's like talking about how they would say that or whatever. Like, okay, so you admit you're not even Jewish. Like like why were you lying? Don't lie to me.

Yeah. No. Yeah, that that was that was fun. That was fun.

All right. All right, you gotta go. Let's get out of here.

Yeah, I do.

Um I'm gonna play my thing. Don't even stick around, dude. Just go because you gotta go. All right.

Have a good night, man.

All right. You, too. God bless.

God bless.

All right, everybody who was tuning in tonight, thank you guys so much. And uh I'm going to let you get out of here. You can keep chatting, chatting, chatting, chatting away. We got 100 120 some odd people watching right now. Um I'll tell you what, Think Squad, I appreciate you guys big time. We couldn't do this without you. If you would like to give to the Think Institute, we are a 501c3, so it's going to be taxdeductible for you. And uh you can do that. Uh well, you can show your support by giving a super chat here on YouTube or you can simply go to thethink.institute/partner if you want to actually make it taxdeductible. If you just want to support us here on YouTube, that's not taxdeductible, but of course, we appreciate it nonetheless. Um, and I see you guys commenting about the lying Australian. I like Australians, don't get me wrong. Some of the best people I've interacted with have been Australians. I like Australians. But, uh, but just I don't like being lied to. I think I'm allowed to not like being lied to. But hey, I've got forgiveness for him. If he apologizes, he wants to come back on, I'll hold out forgiveness for him because I'm a Christian. That's what we do. But I'm not going to be manipulated. All right. Anyway, God bless.

You're a Christian man. You want to build a legacy, answer the world's questions, and lay down a solid foundation for your family in God's word. But everywhere you look, you see decline, disorder, chaos. Your neighbors don't know the Lord, and too many churches are filled with apathy. In today's world, we need men who understand theology, know scripture, and who are committed to leading their families in the biblical worldview. That is why we're building the Hammer and Anvil Society, the ultimate discipleship community for Christian men. With weekly cohort calls, a full library of resources and courses, weekly challenges, and live teaching, you're going to sharpen your mind and your character. Our full library of courses is going to help you deepen your knowledge in the Christian worldview, family discipleship, and apologetics, the defense of your faith. But it's not just about building your knowledge base, as important as that is. It's also about brotherhood. That's why you'll also have access to an online community and live cohort calls, live teaching, and real accountability so you can have fellowship with like-minded brothers who are on the same journey as you. Member Kevin says, "The Hammer and Anvil Society has been the most beneficial thing for my family spiritual growth in years. This unique brotherhood has made me more bold in my witness and more sensitive to God's leading." AJ says, "Today I stand stronger and more rooted in my faith. The Hammer and Anvil Society has been instrumental in transforming me into the man of God I am striving to be. Get unlimited access as a member or try out a single course in the subject of your choice. Learn more now. Go to thethink.institute/society. Get equipped. Build your legacy in community. Join today. You're a Christian man. You want to