Speaker 1: H give me your this, kill me that kill my enemy,
Kill my enemy, my enemy, give me give they kill
my enemy, Give me the kid.
Speaker 2: Anyone that's the one.
Speaker 1: Minisoxa die die die dictive to kill the game.
Speaker 2: They give me tex, give me.
Speaker 1: Dumb, give the kilm my enemy, give me, give me
predicted to give the game.
Speaker 2: They give me, give me, give me wife, give me
your fifty.
Speaker 1: Kill me that kill my enemy, Kill my enemy, my
enemy kills they give they kill my enemy, Give me
the kid. Anyone that's the one mitisox die die die
pardicted give me give they give me a trix, give
me down, give the kil aneth give me, give me
predicted to give the game. They give me a tixkill me,
die by the give me wife, give me your fifty.
Kill me that kill my enemy, Kill my enemy, my enemy,
kill me, give the kill my enemy, give me the
kive me only one that does. Who want medisoms die
by fife die die die.
Speaker 2: Give to kill me game.
Speaker 1: They give me a text any do give the kick
enemy game give me people predictive to give me games.
They give me a text plenty died by t give
me wife, give me your.
Speaker 2: Six this fill me that in my enemy, kill my enemy.
Speaker 1: My enemy kim me give the kill my enemy, give
me the give me Only one does who want medisos
t life, Die Die diet to kill me game. They
give me a trix any do give the kill my enemy,
give me give me time people protective to give me game.
They give me a text.
Speaker 2: Plenty died by Ted.
Speaker 1: I give you the cat gives me where the facts?
Speaker 3: Right now?
Speaker 2: I'm not said the bomb up the awesome. I'm such.
Speaker 1: I thought he's the.
Speaker 4: Selling singing and I hear a.
Speaker 3: Sash of victory. I hear a sound of the order
of the peasant victory for Nachel.
Speaker 4: Will Big release right now for being the sash right now, I'm.
Speaker 2: Not said the bomped up the awesome.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 4: I thought he's the gis of sing sing and.
Speaker 3: I'll hear a flash of victory. I'm here a sound
of the order of the heaven victory for Nachel. Will
Big release right now for being a sac right now,
I'm said the bomb up the awesome.
Speaker 2: I'm the atcha.
Speaker 1: I thought he's the.
Speaker 3: Selling singing and I hear a tush of victory.
Speaker 2: Nika, give me wife, give me your fifty this kill.
Speaker 1: Me that in my enemy kill my enemy, my enemy kill.
They give the kill my enemy, give me the kive
me only one.
Speaker 5: That's one.
Speaker 2: Miniso te di.
Speaker 1: Di id predicted to kill me give they give me
a trix, give me down, give the kill any give me.
Speaker 2: Give me time you predicted to give me give me,
Give me a tex till me die die die.
Speaker 5: I give you the cap.
Speaker 2: Nika give me wife, give me child this kill me
that in my enemy kill my enemy, my enemy kill.
They give the kill my enemy. Give me the kive
me only one. That's one. Miniso die die die die
give to kill the game.
Speaker 1: They give me tax, give me down, give to kill
my enemy give give me time you predicted to give
me give They give me tax died died, give me
the cave.
Speaker 2: Me give me wife, give.
Speaker 5: Me you give me that my enemy all day long,
all day long.
Speaker 6: They give me all day long, all day long.
Speaker 4: That's spice.
Speaker 1: Keeps you bill, give you, give me, gives, give me, give.
Speaker 2: Me, give me teast di.
Speaker 5: Diar by fire who wife.
Speaker 2: Give me, give me that my enemy enemy give they
give thee give me my life, give me, give give,
give give gi gi give give, give, give, give.
Speaker 6: Give gip on Crystal's a nasty.
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 6: Welcome everybody? You all ready to die by fire today?
How can you do a stream on Easterday?
Speaker 5: How can you do it to me?
Speaker 2: How can you do a streams voluntary? It's offending me.
Speaker 6: It's a microaggression, even though I don't have to call in.
Speaker 4: Or even interact with you. How do you do a stream?
Speaker 5: My fee wegel we we we we we.
Speaker 6: We also celebrate the victory over the gates of Hell,
who the church fathers say are the gates of Hell? Oh,
the mouth of the heretics. So included in the notion
of the resurrection victory in the heroing of Hades and
the destruction of the bars and gates and doors of Hades,
and the obtaining of the keys of Hades by the
Son of God. We also have the notion that all
heretics are silenced and destroyed via the events of the
past couple days, So the descent into Hades and the
glorious Third day resurrection. By the way, did you hear
at the beginning of yesterday's service the mention of the
divine energies in the liturgy?
Speaker 5: I did so.
Speaker 6: The apostle liturgy even includes the reference to divine divine
energies in regard to the glorious Third day resurrection, but
not just that, also his descent into Hades. Anyway, So today, though, well,
we're going to focus on the topic of charismaticism, not
that we haven't already addressed megachurches, but specifically the topic
of charismatic pentecostalism in the churches and why this is ridiculous, goofy.
It's an atheism factory. It's destructive to all things known
as Christianity. It makes everyone look look like clowns, and
it is clown church. And so we're going to talk
about the basics of why this is wrong today, and
hopefully you'll understand that the stream that we did a
few days ago, or actually a couple of weeks ago,
where I talked about how there's no new divine revelations
by extension audio issues. Okay, let me see maybe uh.
Speaker 5: I was on.
Speaker 6: Stream yard. Every time I go on stream yard, it
turns my microphone down. Is that better? Can you hear me?
There shouldn't be audio issues? Hello, Hello, laha gives me?
This gives me debt. Anyway, First of all, signs and
wonders cannot and do not quote prove a thing. This
is a very low tier, low low information votage who
believe that a mirror sign or wonder necessarily proves the
entire Paradigmers system. In Luke sixteen, we have the statement wicked,
adulterous generation seeks signs, and yet no sign is given
to it except the sign of the prophet. Jonah knows
Jesus refers back to already written divine revelation, the Book
of Jonah, to show that you're asking me to do
signs and wonders to quote prove my ministry, even though
he already did do signs and wonders as an attestation
and in a limited sense, a quote proof of his ministry.
It's not a proof in the strict sense of paradigm
level justification. Because if we think about atheists, for example,
you'll notice a lot of very low tier normy apologetics
tries to prove the possibility of a resurrection to an atheist,
look at all the witnesses, look at the change in
their lives. Well, that may be the case, but it's
conceivable that people can change their lives and die for
something false, even Christians across the board so called in
various groups and sects, will admit that people can die
for a false belief or a heresy. For example, we
have the statement in Cantate Domino the Council of Florence
that the Roman caldert Church formed only dogmatize the position
that even if a person dies for the name of
Christ outside of communion with the papacy, they're still lost.
So even if you're a Roman Catholic, you would have
to admit that just because a person is martyred or
does some heroic action like dying for the name of Christ,
it still doesn't prove that the religion is true, especially
given every religion claims signs and wonders. And as I
pointed out many times, there were thousands and thousands of
people who supposedly witnessed Mary appear at a Coptic church
in Ziton, Egypt. Does that mean that Coptic theology is
true because supposedly Mary appeared to many people, And so
we begin to see that very quickly, thinking that a
miracle claim proves the entire paradigm is easily demonstrably false
because the same criteria is not used when other religions
and paradigms claim the same. For example, you heard probably
a few weeks ago, we had a Roman Catholic that
maybe a couple months ago called in and made me
twice on this topic for about an hour each time,
and every time I would bring up the counter objections,
he would move the goalpost to say, well, the Roman
Catholic miracles have been scientifically proven. Okay, Well, what happens
when a Coptic person claims that the coptic apparition is
scientifically proven. It's a never ending chain of regression of
miracle claims. For example, we had some years back, Muslims
for many years claiming the miracles of the Qoran prove
the Qoran. Now I don't believe that there were real
miracles of the Koran, but my point is that you're
never going to solve a paradigm level challenge by elements
or particular things within the worldview itself, because just like
an atheist is not going to accept the claims that
Jesus rose from the dead on the basis of so
called e witnesses or this or that person or this
or that theologian, they're going to reinterpret it according to
the lens that they have their paradigm, their rose colored glasses.
They're gonna say, perhaps it appeared to them that Jesus
walked out of the tomb, and perhaps this and that,
Perhaps it was a yet unexplained natural event, Perhaps it
was another person, Perhaps it.
Speaker 5: Was this that.
Speaker 6: So in other words, again, as we've pointed out many years,
many hundred times, there's nothing about the issues that we're
talking about that are strictly evidential in nature. They're not
evidential problems like if you just stack up enough quote evidences,
suddenly it becomes true or the entire paradigm is true.
Even if Jesus was raised from the dead or came
back from the dead, how do we know that that
proves anything outside of the assumptions of the rest of
the paradigm of Christianity. We have in the Old Testament
many holy men, some of whom came back and appeared
and did resurrections and so forth. The bones of Elisha right.
But in other words, the resurrection of Christ only has
the meaning that it has within the entire Christian redemptive story.
So just rising from the dead itself even doesn't necessarily
mean that the totality of Christianity is true, even if
you were to somehow convince a person that it was
very likely that Jesus rose from the dead. So these
are all logical refutations and objections to the claim that
supposedly this event means the entire paradigm is true. Now,
I do believe that the paradigm is true, but I'm
trying to make a different philosophical point that seems to
go over so many people's heads who can't think in
terms of systems. They can only think in terms of
particular piecemeal bits and pieces. Same problem that we see,
for example, with papists when they try to argue for
the papacy. They don't understand that all I need is
one dogmatic contradiction between various popes. It might be in
your car, it might have been slid back in there.
It's not a big deal. I didn't leave it at church.
Speaker 5: It's there.
Speaker 6: Well, maybe I didn't live at church. I don't know anyway.
Miracles will accompany the true faith, but miracles themselves and
signs and wonders cannot of themselves prove it. And just
like in Luke sixteen, Jesus isn't interested in giving the
pharisees a sign or a wonder. He just simply says,
go read Jonah. Remember the story of the rich man,
the parable the rich man and Lazarus. And the rich
guy is in Hades, and he says, let me go
back from the dead, and the miracle will prove to
my brothers that you know you're the Messiah, and I'll
convince them. And Jesus says, what, Yes, you're right. If
we just stack up the evidence is we'll convince everybody.
Is that what Jesus says? No, he says, even if
one rises from the dead, they still will not believe
because they have Moses and the prophets. They already have
the story of Jonah and the prophetic typology in Jonah
or the prophetic typology throughout the writings of Moses. If
they're not going to believe those prophecies, they will not believe.
Though one rise from the dead. Hello, is that right?
Sound familiar? Butts literally argue like the guy and charismatics
like the guy in uh Hades. No, but if you
just if they just see a miracle, they'll believe. And
the point is that people's disbelief isn't ultimately a lack
of evidence. It's actually ultimately an issue of the heart
and pride and heart heeartedness. Now intellect is involved because
a hard heart will misuse the intellect and the reasoning
faculty to go against divine revelation, go against God, go
against what's true, and they will selectively pick and choose
the evidences that they accept. That's why evidentialism doesn't work.
In fact, if you read C. S. Lewisi's Space trilogy,
that's the entire point of the character of Mark in
the third installment. Mark knew deep down from the beginning
of joining nice in Ice, which is basically the nWo
in the Tavistok Institute. He knew that they were evil
from the get go, but he selectively chose the pieces
of evidence that fit what he wanted to be the case.
This is the whole point of that character in the novel.
And when he eventually converts and comes to his senses
and realizes that he was part of an evil institution,
he admits to himself, you know what, it wasn't because
a lack of evidence that it was an evil institution.
It was because I didn't want it to be, and
I selectively chose the evidence to fit the narrative that
I wanted to be the case. He read the evidences
with rose colored glasses, and every atheist, every debunker, will
do that same thing, because it's a issue of paradigms.
It's not an issue of a lack of facts or
lack of evidences, because if you were to go into
looking into the facts and evidences, you would begin to see, oh,
actually there's tons and tons of evidences, right, And being
against evidentialism does not mean I'm against evidences. You have
to use evidences. Evidences are absolutely necessary when it comes
to you know, historic Christianity, when it comes to you know,
claims of you know, Tacitus and claims of Josiphus. Right,
all of these ancient historical texts are very useful as evidences.
But that's not the same thing as evidentialism, which presupposes
a very naive enlightenment ish epistemology that you just present
the facts. Humans are neutral observers. The facts are just
brute facts. They don't require any interpretation. They're not theory laden,
and if you just look at the facts and stack
them up, then there it is all right. It's the
same naive way that Protestants pres reading the scriptures. Well,
the scriptures are just perspicuous, they have perspicacity, they're just clear,
and you just go to the clear passages, and the
clear passages enlightened the other passages because the Bible is
self attesting and it's clear. Well, maybe some passages are,
but that doesn't tell you what the meaning of the
non clear passages are. And how do you know which
ones are the clear which ones are In other words,
you cannot avoid theory laden interpretations of the data and
the facts and the world and history and ancient testimonies. Likewise,
you can't avoid theory laden interpretation of language and words
and books. Now getting back to charismaticism. Charismaticism, as probably
everyone is aware, I'm not going to spend a whole
lot of time on the history of it. You know,
it's late eighteen hundreds, a nineteen hundreds four square gospel.
You know, this comes out of Azuza Street, Revival comes
out of California. All kinds of weird, crazy heresies and
nonsense and colts totally come out of California. California is
like a giant cult factory. Basically, it's very good at
that California. It gelds say a grade on its ability
to create crazy cults. They're very good at it. I
believe some of those are fostered and aided by the system,
and some of those are organic, just straight up cults.
And so I don't necessarily have a thesis that there
was some conspiracy involved in the rise of charismaticism. There
could be, I'm just not aware of it. Rather, I
would assume that much like a lot of cults and movements,
you get uneducated people who mistake their enthusiasm. It used
to be called that in the time of the Enlightenment
Scientific Revolution, people who were these sort of crazy religious
wackos were called enthusiasts. If you read I think it's
either Lock or Kant, I think it's Locke talks about enthusiasts,
this sort of just you know, prelst inspired individuals who
believe that they have some you know, divine direct mandate
from God, God speaking to them in audible voices or
in feelings or in patterns of events, et cetera. And
this takes off in California at this Azuza Street revival,
and this becomes not the origin of all Pentecostalism or charismaticism. Certainly,
as I will mention in a moment, there are predecessors,
and shocker, where does the precedent come for this? Why
Roman Catholicism and it's histrionic women saints that we've covered
many many times. I'm not going to rehearse all that,
but I do want to make a point to say that,
for example, if we look back at the Azusa Street revival,
we will notice very clear parallels between the way that
these people act and operate and the histrionic women's saint
claims in the Roman Catholic world. And I'm not just
singling out the Roman Calicus either, because there were Protestant
predecessors as well. For example, the Great Awakening, the Old
Light New Light dispute Jonathan Edwards is preaching, which led
to people having these bizarre manifestations of yapping and barking
and rolling and frothing and giggling and losing their mind,
all this nonsense. But let's start with a Zuza Street
for a little bit here, and then we'll get the
background briefly, and then we'll move into some of the
other historical examples, and then we'll go to some of
the texts that are used by this Goofball religion sect
that are easily refuted.
Speaker 7: Nineteen o six, the location two hundred and fourteen Bonnie
Bray Street. On the third day of a ten day fast,
William Seymour began to preach to the prayer group from
Acts chapter two, verse four, and they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other
tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. Afterwards, mister Edward
Lee asked Seymour to lay hands on him as they
did in the scriptures, and pray that he would receive
the Holy Ghost. When they finished, Lee lifted his hands
and began speaking in tongues.
Speaker 6: Now, notice first of all that there's no context for
Acts two here, And it's the exact same mistake that
I made when I was eighteen or nineteen and I
just started reading the Bible as a Protestant, and I thought, oh, look,
here's Acts too. They're laying on hands and they're quotes
speaking in tongues. That must be what the Pentecostal Church
is doing down the road. I thought this when I
first started reading the Bible. In just total biblical exegetical
hermeneutical and historical ignorance. I thought this right, and so
you know, I'm going to try to be as patient
as I can and as nice as I can because
I'm so mean. But we have to understand that, first
of all, that's not what's happening in Acts two. Acts
two is a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and predictions.
For example, in Isaiah. You can go back and watch
my video on why there's no New Revelations that I
just posted a couple of weeks ago in my clips
not my clips channel, on my main channel under videos clips,
there's a video called this one argument refutes all new
revelation cults, whether Mormons, Muslims, or Charismatic and Pentecostals. So
that I'm not going to rehearse all this stuff about
new divine revelations because that's dealt within that very quick, precise,
fifteen to twenty minute video. But suffice to say that
Isaiah predicts a specific event where the Jews will see
a miraculous event, as well as Joel predicting the pouring
out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh. Those are
signs that are specific fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies or
Isaiah about the Jews being taught by another people in
a strange tongue and then falling over backwards when they
don't believe. That's a reference to the actions and events
pentecost Next too, the languages that are spoken, and it's
very key here are people hearing the message in the
Gospel miraculously in their native tongue. That's the miracle. There
is nothing at all about gibberish or an angel language
in any of this. Okay, so glosa, as we'll see
in a moment. Or languages or tongues is literally defined
in the most basic Greek lexicon as a language, a tongue,
a native people group's speech. Nothing to do with gibbering, babbling, frothing,
falling on the floor, rolling, barking in all the nonsense
that charismatics and Pentecostals do. Literally nothing, And the angel
tongue that Paul talks about. Paul is not saying that
there's an actual angel language that's like gibberish. No, No,
he's saying it's a rhetorical point that even if I
knew the tongues of the language of the Angels, if
I had all the linguistic knowledge in the world, even
if I knew the language of the angels. Okay, it's
an exaggeration, it's rhetoric. It's a rhetorical statement, he says.
But if I don't have love, it's useless. And I'm
a clanging gong, a banging symbol. It doesn't mean that
Paul is also telling you about the secret Gibberish angel language.
And I think that you would only come to this
if you were completely ignorant. And I don't mean that
in a mean way, just in a factual way. Uneducated
people pick up religious texts and they think that it's
whatever the first thing that pops in their mind. Right, Oh,
that must be what the pentecostald. And I know because
I was uneducated, and when I first started reading the Bible,
I thought that I thought, I guess this is what
the Pentecostals do, Right. I didn't know that I could
go look in the strongs and I even had a strongs.
What is glosa in scripture a tongue, a language, specifically
one naturally unacquired language. That's the miracle aspect. But as
you can see in the Gift of Foreign languages and acts, Two.
There's nothing about gibberish in any of this. What is
tongues in the Bible a language or dialect used by
particular people distinct from another nation. It's that simple. So
what is the miracle in the church the ability to
translate the texts into other languages? It's that simple. Not
many people have the gift of languages. Some people are
very gifted in that. Did you know that the go
Mortensen speaks like seven languages. That's a gift. Now, that
doesn't mean he has like the gift of pentecost. I'm
not saying that. I'm just saying that some people have
a natural affinity for that. And I think in the
Biblical context, in the period of Acts, there was this
ongoing divine revelation. So we're not at the point when
divine revelation ends. Yet public divine revelation ends. When John
the Apostle dies, there's no more new public divine revelations.
It's complete. And go see the other video I made
on why the Bible itself tells you when divine revelation
that's public is complete. I'm not saying there's no miracles.
I'm saying that divine revelation is done. Public divine revelation
ceases when John passes away. So let's go back to
the Zuzus Street Revival and we'll get the history this experience.
Speaker 7: Since Shock wage the room and at the same time,
a young lady named Ginny Moore feil from her stool
where she was sitting.
Speaker 3: The power of God fail, and I was baptized in
the Holy Ghost and Fire with the evidence of speaking
in tons.
Speaker 6: Now, notice that this is immediately a woman affiliated, woman
based thing. It began with this dude preaching. But the
first baptized in the spirit person is this obviously emotional
woman who falls over in her chair and starts. I
don't know what she's doing here. She says talking in tongues,
but that probably means just gibberish. Right now, let's keep
in mind what does Paul say about the role of
women in church. Generally, I do not permit a woman
to teach in the church, but to be in silence. Okay,
And what's the beginning of the Azusa Street Revival. A
woman flopping around on the ground in gibberish? Does that
sound like a Pauline type of spirit?
Speaker 3: Here as I looked at God, it seemed as if
a vessel broke within me and water surged up through
my being, which when it had reached my mouth, it
poured out in a torrent of languages God had given me.
I sang under the power of the spirit in many languages,
and in the home where the meeting was helped. The
spirit led me to the piano, where I played and
sang under the inspiration, although I had not learned how
to play.
Speaker 6: Now, this is what this woman claims. I mean, who
knows if she actually didn't know how to play the
piano and just miraculously played the piano. I mean, this
is her claim. Who knows if this is actually the case.
But secondly, even if this did occur in some out
of the norm way, that she didn't actually know how
to play the piano and then suddenly did, how do
we know that it's actually a good spirit and not
an evil spirit? I mean, an evil spirit could conceivably
play the piano or possess a person to do this.
So these actions themselves do not prove or disprove anything
without the context of discerning the spirits. Remember John talks
about be sure to discern the spirits, And how do
we discern the spirits according to divine revelation? Is it
just feelings? And everybody knows that almost all of this
kind of stuff is feelings based, right, all this Pentecostal
stuff right now, I'm not saying feelings have no place.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 6: For example, if we go to confession, we have sorrow
over our sins, we repent, there's feelings involved in that.
But your emotions and your feelings are not God. They're you.
And most of these sects and groups mistake their emotions
and their feelings for the dictates of the spirit or
of God. Now, in Deuteronomi thirteen, we have the principle
that anytime there's signs and wonders or claims of miracles,
what you test them by is the theology they that
they possess, and by extension also the fruits. Right, so
Jesus says you'll know them by their fruits. But the
specific way to know about a prophet. In many charismatic
Pentecostal people believe that their prophets or that they have
divine prophetic revelations. In fact, we just saw sam Dalon
Shamoun claiming to also apparently be able to in a
prophetic way even though he says, I'm not calling myself
a prophet, but I'm gonna prophesy, which is a lie
out of his own mouth, contradicting himself. The test of
a prophet or the gift of prophecy quote unquote, is,
first of all, do you keep in line with prior
revelation and the theological principles laid out.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 6: I'm not even granting that there are quote prophets today,
there are not prophets, And in fact Luke sixteen sixteen
says there's no prophets in an Old Testament sense today.
But if you also look over at Nermy eighteen, you'll
notice that the second principle laid out is that there
will be a prophet that speaks like Moses. That's the prophet,
as the Book of Acts says, was Jesus. Jesus is
the new Moses. I just read it in the liturgy
last night, the chapter in Acts where it specifically identifies
this as fulfilled in Christ, and it says, how do
we know the prophet is a true prophet or false prophet?
And again you have to dictate that he has to
speak according to what was previously divine revelation right now.
When Paul in Galatians won lays down his principles for
a false and a true gospel, or a false and
a true teacher, it is the same principle as Deuome
thirteen and eighteen. You may only follow the person who
has the same preaching and teaching that Paul laid down.
That means there's a finality. If there was no finality
to Paul's letters in the New Testament, you could have
no fixed measure to judge so called prophets and so
called teachers. That's another reason why it can't be an ongoing,
evolving public revelation with new prophets and new gospels and
new teachers and whatever else Muslims and Mormons and Charismatics
think is going on and again, just like Joseph Smith
had to change this verse in his translation, Luke sixteen
sixteen says, the law and prophets were until John, and
since that time, since the law and the prophets since John,
as the last of the Old Testament prophets, the Kingdom
of God is preached. Okay, so the Church is the
Kingdom of God. The Church are the vine dressers that
Zechariah thirteen predicted would be the church age. Right again,
I'm hammering home this point in the other video about
why there's not new divine prophetic revelations after the death
of the Apostles. In Zacharia thirteen, we have the prediction
that in the Messianic era, and if you read the
entire chapter is very clear that it is the Messianic
era because it talks about the Son of God being pierced.
It says that if anyone still claims to prophesy it
or be a prophet, his mother and his father that
be God him will say you shall not live. We
already know that you are a deceiver. Anyone who claims
to be a prophet in those days, we will say
you are cut off. There are no more prophets, because
this is the time in which the Shepherd Savior was
cut off. So all of these texts attest to a
finality to public divine relation, not can a saint be
a clairvoyant, or can this miracle happen at this or
that church or around this or that icon. Of course,
we believe that that is not the same thing as
Prophetess So and so spoke. Therefore, we have a new
book from Ellen White that will supplant and help the Bible.
Joseph Smith has spoken, and Moron I told him what
to say from the Golden tablets, and this book will
help fix the problems in the Bible. Mohammed has spoken
as a prophet like Moses and Jesus, and Mohammed will
fix the problems in the Bible. Do you see the
difference here? And even though a charismatic Pentecostal person might
not necessarily say that my prophecies supplement the Bible or
correct the Bible, he's already violated this principle that you
were already rejected and condemned in the second and third
century when we rejected Montanism. Okay, the Church rejected Montanous
the charismatic of the second century, and the Church rejected
that interpretation of Glossalelia as gibberish and extemporaneously speaking from
the Holy Spirit because it's languages. Thus, the Orthodox Catholic
Church never ever accepted the Pentecostal charismatic understanding of what
is going on in two or with the charismatic gifts
of First Corinthians twelve. And in fact, let's look at
First Corinthians twelve. When Paul writes that there is a
diversity of gifts. To one is giving the working of miracles,
to one the gift of prophecy. This is in the
intertestamental transitional period. You understand that from the time of
Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and the Book of Acts to
the death of John and the destruction of the Temple
in seventy eight D. This is entirely the transition period
from the Old to the New Covenant. The New Covenant
is not totally fully one hundred percent in until the
seventy eight D destruction of the Temple. That's the removal
of the old system that Hebrews talks about, thus fulfilling
Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four. So not everything
in the Acts Book of Acts period will even be
normative for the entire history of the Church. For example,
there is no new We don't have a new Pentecost.
There will not be another Acts too, because Pentecost in
Acts two was the fulfillment of Pentecost. You see, there
will never be another Jerusalem Council to solve how to
receive gentiles into the church. It's already been settled. So
you see that just because something occurs between the ascension
of Christ and Acts one and the death of John
or the destruction of the Temple in seventy eight D.
That doesn't mean that that's normative for the entire history
of the Church. But because Pentecostals and Charismatics are almost
usually uneducated people, self appointed lay people with no real
education in these topics or no knowledge of church history,
formation of the Biblical canon, et cetera, et cetera, they
import their personal subjectivist interpretations into all these passages. But
what's the word that's use here? In one Corinthians twelve
ten A diversity of languages and to another the ability
to interpret the languages. Now, this could be referring to
a miraculous gift like you see in Acts to a
pentecost right, or it could be referring to a miraculous
fluency and ability to understand and translate. It could be
either one. Yeah, please, thank you. But you'll notice that
the word, by and by the way, did you know
that the word here working here is energeia, the energies
of the spirit. Right to one is given the gift
of prophecy, and all kinds of what glosa languages? Glosa?
What is glosa the language or dialect of a particular
people distinct from another nation. Where's the gibberish, where's the
speaking the tongues of angels that these goobers think that
they're doing. Welcome everybody. We got twelve hundred over here
almost on YouTube what it like, and you can support
the stream also by super chat. Super chats are done
through stream labs or through YouTube natively, you can support
the stream stream there. So hopefully we can begin to
see that, you know, there's not anything really in First
Corinthians twelve that would in any way speak to some
sort of gibberish, some sort of flopping around and acting
insane and foolish. And keep in mind too that when
we when we see in the next chapter, let's go
to the next chapter, O man that went on the
way to the Second Corinthians. In the Orthodox Church, we
believe that Paul's discussions of the experience that he has
about the third heavens, right though I speak with the
tongues of men and angels. Now, this passage here is
what most of them sort of just assume. Well, then
Paul must be saying that he got an angel language
and that we can learn language when the preacher lays
his hands on me and I start babbling. Once stop Bible.
That was the I ain't I could talk to Gabriel
and Michael directly, right. No, it literally says tongues of men,
which are known languages, as we just saw in the
definition here, right, a tongue is a known dialect of
a nation, a glossa. And it does not follow from
that that because Paul uses a rhetorical statement. Look, if
I know all the languages and I can even talk
angel language, it doesn't follow that there is an angel
language that you that you can speak. That's silly. And
then he goes into discussing love, and he discusses charity, right,
and then he talks about his mystical experience. So this
unknown tongue in the Orthodox interpretation, this is the next
passage that the charismatics go to. That is the speaking
of mysteries, right, that edifies the individual. This is the
inner prayer of the heart. And there was a really
good exegesis of this some years back. I can't remember
who did it, and I'm not a huge fan of
the Romanides, but it might have actually been Romanites had
a really good exegesis of this passage. But regardless whoever
it was, there is an Orthodox priest or bishop of
recent note. It might have been maybe Herothios Lacos that
had a really good exegesis of this chapter. Because Paul
is talking about this the language of prayer, which is
this deep inner hessekia, the prayer of violence, that the
inner man is praying without ceasing. Right. And it's because
Paul says elsewhere right, the Spirit knows me better than
I know myself, that inner prayer of his spirit, the
news the heart directly praying in the Holy Spirit. That's
what we think this is. It doesn't equate to gibberish
flopping around on the ground, and gives me that prosperity
gospel nonsense. In fact, Paul in the very same letter says,
do nothing out of order, but do all things with
sobriety order. And he says God is not the author
of confusion. If God is not the author of confusion,
then why would we think that He ordained worship services
to be nothing but insane confusion like charismatic church services screaming, yapping, flopping, foaming, giggling.
Literally right, think of it. For thousands of years, God
ordains specific ordered, patterned liturgical worship. That liturgical worship is
even based on the worship in heaven. Right, Moses received
the pattern of worship. Paul says, that was the tupos,
the type of the heavenly worship in Hebrews. So what
Moses puts into the tabernacle is the pattern of the
heavenly worship. When John sees into heaven in the Revelation
five to nine, it's ordered liturgical worship in heaven. That's
what the Orthodox Church has on earth. Do you see
any yipping and yapping and rolling when John looks into heaven?
You see incense, you see vestiments, you see an altar.
Do you see any of that in these clown churches?
Of course not, because God doesn't ordain liturgical worship for
thousands of years and then suddenly tell everybody to go
act like it's a rock concert. It's idiotic, it's stupid,
it's ignorant. How did Jesus himself worship? I always like
to ask Protestants and Charismatics this, when Jesus was a
young man and he was growing up, and how did
his normal pattern of worship go?
Speaker 5: And what was it like?
Speaker 6: Was he flopping around the ground. Did he give any
examples of doing this or did he go to his
local synagogue and temple and worship the way that had
been ordained by him? Because he gave the law through liturgy. Oh,
I never thought about that. Why would Jesus ordain liturgical
worship for thousands of years establish his church? That church
immediately fails. I'm talking about the Apostolic Patristic church. Then
we get who Montanous, who, by the way, is a
I think he's a weird heterodox trinitarian. Like his trinitarian
theologizing sound trinitarian. He thinks he's the voice of the
Holy Spirit. So Montanous was the true church? And then
what it dies out? And then we don't get more
charismatic stuff until Gertrude. I'm trying to think of the
first medieval histrionic. No Francis the first charismatic Roman Catholic
I can think of as Francis of ASSISI and you
guys recall we saw this in the History of the
Cambridge Companion to Western Hermeticism had a chapter on medieval
women mystics. It's one of the best chapters I've read
in a long time. On all this stuff because you realize,
wait a minute, these chicks are the actual predecessors to
feminism and to charismaticism, and two women preachers all wrapped
up in one medieval convent of insanity. So I'm talking
about Julian Norwich, Gertrude the Great, there's some other ones
that I don't remember. And then more recently you move
up into Faustina Kowalska, Margaret Mary Alacoque, so called Saint Gemma.
These are all Roman Catholic histrionic women, so called saints,
who are literally proto charismatics in the sense of charismaticism. Now,
I've already addressed this in this video over here, so
I'm not going to readdress this same point. I'm going
to give you the link if you want to go
watch what I think is another pretty pretty damning critique
of the Roman Catholic system here, because we're going to
see in a moment that when I refute this and
prove this to be heterodox, this also means Roman Catholicism
is false because Roman Catholicism from the papacy down has
approved and accepted the so called charismatic renewal. Thus, if
Charismaticism and Pentecostalism are heresies and heterodox. Then logically it
follows that the papacy is also heterodox and heretical, because
it approves and promotes quote the charismatic renewal from the
papacy down and has at least as far back as
John Paul the Second, maybe even earlier, maybe even John
twenty third to Paul the sixth, but at least for
sure John Paul the Second approved of the charismatic renewal,
even to the point of giving charismatics Catholic communion like
Brother Roger Shoots. As we've covered many, many times. If
you want that video, you scroll down to right here,
and I show you that you don't get the liberty
and Roman Catholicism of saying, oh, well, I don't accept
Margaret Mary alo cocoit no, no, it doesn't work that way.
She's already approved by two popes and her veneration and
the Sacred Heart is all approved by two popes and
two bulls. Sainthood and Roman Catholicism is part of the
ordinary magisterium. I can evolve, and that means you don't
get the freedom and the right. So oh, I just
don't accept that. I can't tell you how many Roman
Catholics I bring this up that said, well, I just
don't have to accept all that. No, yes, you do.
You think you get the right to reject two papal
bulls affirming her mystical experiences and sainthood. You think that
you get to reject the second most popular Roman Catholic
devotion in the world. That's ludicrous. So you've got Fatima
number one, our lady of Fatima. What's the number two
devotion in the Roman Catholic world? I would argue the
Sacred Heart. That's Margaret Mary ala Coque. Yes, absolutely, Sam
Schmoun is a Roman Catholic charismatic. Thus he is immediately disqualified.
That's all you need to know. Anybody claiming that orbs
are manifesting through their spit particles and their cat dust
is an insane Sam Shalom automatic disqualifier. And he literally
said he was going to prophesy even as he says
he's not prophesying, which is like straight up contradiction. So
so if you're a Roman Catholic, you got to defend
and accept that Jesus was telling Margaret Mary alo coquit
to carve his name in her chest, cut herself up,
and that Jesus was her boyfriend and all this other nonsense.
As well as Faustina Koualska, she has just as ridiculous
a claim. Falstina Kowalska's claims are just as insane and
ridiculous as Margaret maryly Al okay, except that Fostina Koualska's
claims didn't involve her like cutting herself up and then
re cutting the wounds again later after she her superiors
thought she was crazy because she was, and then she
went and tried to recut the wounds again, carving Jesus
name into her chest. Next, Kowalska claims that the host
floats around, right, and Jesus talks to her through the
host as is floating around and says, you're the greatest
nun in the convent. We're basically boyfriend girlfriend. I'm not kidding.
You don't get to reject that if you're Roman Catholic.
Oh that I said on accept Falseina Kowalska. She's a
papally declared, universally accepted saint in the Roman Catholic Church.
You don't get to reject that. What are you talking
about you really think the host was flying around telling
her that she was the greatest nun in the world. Now,
what's one of the key signs in our perspective Orthodox
perspective on false miracle? Saint Vision claims, what's the number
one sign of pre okay, prelast is spiritual delusion. The
number one sign of prelast is that it produces pride
and not humility. So if Falstina Kuska claims that, yeah,
Jehalsa has a funny quote there, he says, Falstina Kuaska
claim that Jesus gave her authority over all creation. I mean,
this is like obviously delusion. It's like you see Sam
Chumunn with the exact same delusion as these history onic
women's saints. Right, So here we come with the people.
It's Easter, and Jujus wants to debate. Did you realize
that a part of Easter is the victory over all
the mouths of the heretics. Who does the Cerch Church
rather say the mouths of heretics are the gates of hell,
and we proclaim in the liturgy victory over the gates
of Hell. Well, if the gates of Hell are the
mouths of the heretics. Then what better day to refute
gibberish nonsense than the days celebrating the victory over the
gates of hell the mouths of heretics. Now, in the
case of Fasena Kowalska, the first things that she starts
saying after the supposed host is floating around and talking
to her, is how she is the special girlfriend of
Jesus above all the other nuns.
Speaker 5: In the world.
Speaker 6: You can't make this up. Does that sound like humility
or does that sound like prelist? Imagine if I came
on here and I said, God, I had a dream
last night, Jesus came to a dream. Jesus told me
I'm the greatest apologist in the world, and then I'm
the best Jesus defender in the entire world. Would you
think that I was humble if I said that, or
would you all just immediately think that, Okay, he's lost it.
He's looney tunes, he's gone the road of sham shamoo,
scam shamoo, he's looney tunes. He's lost it. Obviously you
would think that accurately I have gone crazy, because that's
a crazy, it's a it's not producing humility. So the
first sign of delusion is extreme arrogance and delusional pride
and not the production of humility. And in many of
these history onic Roman Catholic women saints, especially you see
pre Lest p R E l e s T. Pre
Lest is spiritual delusion. There's no better example of this
than these history on women's saints who are cutting themselves.
I mean, is it it?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 6: Jesus is sending Catherine. Uh, what's that one? Spiritual orgasms?
I'm not kidding. I'm not trying to be gross or blosphemous.
That's what she says. The one that has the you
know when you walk into the Vatican and you see
it's like the second one you see. I forget which
one it is. But if you read the Cambridge Companion,
you can actually see that, Okay, these women are actually
having some sexual issues in the convent because they actually
talk about I'm not kidding and I'm not being people
rumcaics saying no, no, they speak in sexual language. Catherine
is seeing it.
Speaker 5: I thank you.
Speaker 6: They speak in the weird sexual language, not me, and
it just that's just Roman Catholics like being ignorant of
their own addition, right, when it comes to the the
spiritual orgasms that they talk about. I'm not kidding. That's
what she says, not me. So something was going on
in the Roman Calthoc domain when immediately after the Schism,
not too long after that, you have Francis of Assiz
claiming that he saw a Sarah Fim crucified on the cross.
What that's one of his famous visions. There's no angel
that was crucified. That's a delusion. That's weird. It doesn't
make any sense. And by the way, this weird stuff
is not just Roman caltholc oddities. Okay. Again, the point
I'm making here is that you have to believe what's
papally approved about the saints, and the pattern of what
orthodox saints talk about and experience is quite literally, as
people have pointed out in the Chat, the opposite. Any
mystical experiences, any visions, these kinds of things, they immediately
produce tremendous humility, not outrageous claims of Jesus, my boyfriend
and I control all the creation of the world. That's crazy.
It's weird to me that they can't see this. It
doesn't make any But again, if you don't have discernment,
you will fall for these delusions. So let's look at
another example. This is supposed to be true Christian Now, No,
the Roman Calviolc world, because of so many scandals and corruptions,
has famously had to sell off many of its dioceses
and many of its cathedrals. Here's a Roman Calvy cathedral
in Duscheldorf, Germany that is now a Pentecostal church. Do
you think that whatever this nonsense patty cake is, do
you think that's going to be able to stave off Islam?
Do you think these goofballs stand any chance against an
onslaught of Arab lunatics that are coming with simpters and
five hundred offspring right, I mean the the just the
in sane level of delusion, as I pointed out on
Twitter today, with people who want to whine and bitch
about me debating people, you're gonna learn the hard way.
You're gonna wish in ten to fifteen years that you
had supported me out here on the front lines, debating
all the top Muslims when your whole lands are coated
with minarets and his jobs. And do you think your
skittles Evangelicalism is going to stand a chance against a
giant horde of Islamic invasion that's presently happening right now.
I just drove coast to coast a few months ago.
I saw mosques on Indian reservations, and you pathetic weak people, disgusting,
cowardly weak people who want to virtue signal piety, signal
about how you're above debating and how pious you are.
And your children are going to wake up to the
yapping minaret playing the yapping sounds, and your sons and daughters,
which you probably don't even have because you're sterile. The
ones that you do have are going to be married
off to Muslims, and you're going to be wondering how
did this happen. I can't figure out how it happened.
How did our skittles Christianity not stand up against a
giant Islamic invasion. I just can't figure it out. I
guess it was the fault of those evil debaters on YouTube.
It was the evil debate people that caused all of it.
When Islam invades the West as it is and it
takes over, it will actually be justified. I don't want
that to happen. But I'm saying, when I see the
attitude of people in the West, you are so ripe
for conquer you are so weak, you're so pathetic, You're disgusting.
Most of you are disgusting. Meanwhile, your papacy praise towards
Mecca in the mosques, and you larp online as a
trad cat when your infallible, indefectible head is light years
ahead of you into Chris lom and I open up Twitter,
I open up TikTok, I see giant profiles of idiot
blonde models with hundreds of thousands of followers talking about
the lowest tier DAWA talking points. You understand it's already happening, dummies,
You're already getting invaded. Oh it's Pasco's celebrate we cat
well good, Celebrate, Celebrate the death of the West. Celebrate
the end of your genetic lineage. Celebrate the end of
your culture, and laugh and giggle all you want. Pretend
like it's not real. Pretend like there's not mosques going up.
They just built a giant Islamic center in Florida. And
then here's people. Oh, you could't even dead lift one
hundred pounds, right, so I can't deadlift is your answer
to how you're gonna stop this insane death cult sect
of Islam invading the West. See this is why people
like you are the reason why it's a problem. Are
you gonna deadlift all the Muslims as they invade your
your country, your village, your your gated community? BC is
you're gonna be gonna deadlift to stop the Muslims? You idiot.
They just tried to build an entire compound, a city
village compound in Texas.
Speaker 8: There ain't no, there aren't no Muslims in burden. What
an idiot he wants to debate everybody? Just wait, just wait, no, no,
I'm not talking about I know about Texas. They just
built a separate center in Florida. They built a giant
separate Islamic center in Florida.
Speaker 6: Who the Muslims are gonna clip this? Why is he
talking like this? Because you need a reality check?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 6: Who are the top people out here debating the Muslims?
Speaker 5: Me?
Speaker 6: I'm un fortunately Sam Shaloon, David would ap Bob Orthodox,
Shahada Lewis, and Kai almost nobody like it's weird too
because so many of like the like I would say
half the Orthodox clergy and world. They tolerate what I
do even though they hate it because they don't control
what I say. They don't control you know, what I
think or whatever. Oh yeah, God logic, and Christian Prince
is I mean, Christian Prince is worthless. He might as
well just not even because all he does is lead
people into something just as stupid as as long his
ad Iq cult is just as just as dumb. So
let's be honest here and look at uh, look at England.
Basically England is already Muslim. So you want to see
your future, look at England. That's your future, bro, I
said Ap, I said David Wood, ap Bob Avery. So
like hardly there's herd. There's not that many people. Yes,
Andrew did a debate as well, so I'm not intentionally
leaving people out. I'm just thinking about the standard, you know,
Muslim debater people out there, and half of the so
called Orthodox world thinks that debating is mean and evil.
And I'm just sitting here saying, I mean, enjoy your
Muslim overlords. I mean, that's what you want. You want
to be under a bunch of weirdo, insane death gould people.
You're gonna get it. You're gonna get it. You will
get what you want. And you want to act like
this is Christianity. You want to be like this is
something authentic. All this acting like a bunch of idiots
and kidner gardeners flopping around yapping, acting like teenagers and
twelve year olds at a sleepover. You're ripe for conquering.
By the way, I said this exact same thing six
years ago when I debated my first Muslim. The first
Muslim I debated was Paul Williams. Now, there was a
previous conversation with the Zomba for one of the Dobbel guys,
but it wasn't a formal debate. The first formal debate
was Paul Williams. And I said, right before I did
the Paul Williams debate, that Western so called Christiana Kuckianity
is ripe for conquer and they're going to be conquered.
And the Muslims clipped me about that because they thought
it was some kind of own when I'm just trying
to warn people about what's happening here. We are what
from twenty eighteen, seventeen eighteen to twenty twenty five, seven
years later, we have mosques going up in Indian reservations.
In America, we have giant Islamic center being built in Florida.
They had tried to build a giant Islamic city in Texas.
And people are still acting like Jesus doesn't want you debating.
I mean, it's like, do you understand you get what
you deserve when you're that dumb and you're that naive.
And even I was naive ten years ago about the
real nature of Islam. I never thought it made any sense,
never believed it. I didn't realize it was as dumb
and crazy as it actually is. That's when I still
he is long right. I started looking into it twenty
seventeen eighteen, and here we are now. I have a
good grasp on it. I don't know everything about it.
I don't have to. It's an insane death goult. But
you weak evangelicals and Southodox and Normy docs and Amerdox
and all the rest of you charismatic skittles wisses who
can't even handle a debate, How are you going to
handle sharia law? Oh you're going to cower immediately, and
you can celebrate the resurrection because we know Christ has
already won, but that hasn't in time manifested entirely yet,
has it. There's still a warfare, there's still battle going
on until the second I'd been and that might be
one hundred years, that might be two hundred years, that
maybe five hundred years. And it's only going to take
ten to fifteen years if this continues for your children
to be under the Islamic yoke. And that's what you deserve,
all of you cowards and you scumbacks. And many of
you are cowards and scumbacks. I'm talking about other people
who whine and bitch about debating being bad and who
act like they're so morally superior. You will be under
a yoke that you chose because you are weak, empathetic
and a coward. And this is what you think is
going to stand up against that? All right, you're getting
on my nerves because you use that stupid hoss emoji
for the last hour. What's your point? Go ahead, I'm mute, hey,
j what's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 6: You tell me?
Speaker 9: Well, first of all, I'm evangelical, nondy nam and everything
he said is completely right.
Speaker 6: Okay, Well, if everything I says right, then why are
you Evangelical. No, then I'm a nation once.
Speaker 5: No, regarding Islam's tough.
Speaker 6: It's mostly orthodogs online who like hate Jews and they
like love Muslims.
Speaker 2: They're like ally with Muslims.
Speaker 6: I notice I've never seen an Orthodox person online ally
with a Muslim. I've never seen that.
Speaker 5: They're always like defending muslim No.
Speaker 6: They're not. Now you're lying of where ever where there
are you talking about? Hold On? Defending Palestine is not
necessarily equivalent of defending Muslims. It is, No, it isn't.
Do you know that there's Orthodox Christians in Telson?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 6: Is that funny to you?
Speaker 5: That?
Speaker 6: So it's funny to you when Orthodox Christians get their
churches bombed, that's funny.
Speaker 5: So you blame Israels.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I blame Israel for bombing Orthodox churches like they
just did.
Speaker 9: Are you saying because Hajumusk literally uses a nearby building
as a freaking terrorist thing?
Speaker 6: No, no, no, no, a separate event the church was bombed. No, no, no,
You're just a scumbag man. You're trash bro. Get out
of here. You're a I'm a joke, right, Yeah, Evangelicals
are just the worst man. Daniel on you this, he
just comes in line. There's I've never seen an Orthodox
person defending Muslims. That's ridiculous. If he's talking about the
people groups getting that's not defending Islam. Idiot, what's up?
Speaker 9: Yeah, so I come from a Calvinist kind of background,
and you know, I got.
Speaker 10: You know, caught up in the whole dialectic thing and
you know, faith and works and things like that.
Speaker 5: I had a couple of questions, if you don't mind, okay,
So do you think like this.
Speaker 10: Kind of paradigm was like trying to separate you from
like what you do can like triple down to other things.
Speaker 5: Like you know, some people say like I want to
like you for you and not like what you do
for me. But I'm starting to think, like, then what
you do for me like the same thing as who
you are, you know, that type of thing.
Speaker 6: I mean, you're not identical to your works right right, right,
but the works reflect what's in you.
Speaker 10: So right, Yeah, So it just doesn't even make sense
to even separate the two, is what I'm trying to
get that, right, And that's pretty much the orthodosic you Well.
Speaker 6: You said, if you love me, you'll keep my commandments.
So yeah, Berg, by the way, it's open for him
if you want to call in. Now is the time
to call in. I'll give you, guys the link here
for the X space in the chat.
Speaker 5: And that's pretty much the So what hello, can.
Speaker 9: I'm calling thembout Christ has risen orthodox truly, Mike, I'm
calling on behalf of my Like.
Speaker 5: What's it called? Like Pentecostal friends? I think the biggest
is show is like conveying ecclesiology to them, because I
just take the parts and the crazylogy. What would you
suggest to convey that to them? Uh?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean Paul in the New Testament says that
there's a historic laying on his hands that is Apostolic succession.
It's not Pentecostal preachers laying on hands. It's from Paul
to Timothy to Timothy's descendants. Okay, So the very thing
that they think is like charismatic gifts being given by
the laying on of hands is Apostolic succession. It's the
very thing like that refutes them, right, because in the
Book of Numbers numbers eleven, when when Moses does that,
it's establishing an authority, and Paul is mirroring that in
what he does. Ye oh yeah, So I.
Speaker 11: Had a question about evangelical say that divine commentd theory
solves the Islk distinction or the problem is would that
be accurate or is there another way.
Speaker 5: To solve it?
Speaker 6: The is ought problem is a problem for UH empiricists,
So it doesn't really have something to do with Theism
or Christianity or whatever. It's only a problem if you
believe in everything being madder or if you're a strict materialist.
Speaker 5: All right, thanks.
Speaker 6: Lajakonda. So people in the chat, we got a pretty lively,
feisty chat over here on YouTube. It's not for you
to yap and spam and preach. You either call in
or we're not interested. So there's the link to call
in and you can call in there. Otherwise we're not
interested in your preaching in the chat. What's up, man,
I'm mute, Lajiaconda, unmute. Okay, don't let me Let's move on.
Are you there? Hello?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 5: Are you there?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 6: I can barely hear you. What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Oh you.
Speaker 5: Don't know?
Speaker 4: I can you hear me? My microphone should be working,
but I just I just calling in. I went through
your page. I was looking for any maybe videos that
you have on Easter. I just want to know what
what is it Easter?
Speaker 6: What is an Easters is Pasca and the Orthodox Church
is called Pasca, which is passover. Christ is our passover, Pasca.
That's the Greek word for Passover. The Jewish Passover we
believe is fulfilled in our Pasco.
Speaker 4: Right, But where is this word Easter coming from where?
Speaker 6: That's a Germanic term that's used in the six or
seven hundreds for that time of the year in amongst
Germanic tribes. So it has nothing to do with Ishtar,
has nothing to do with goddess worship. In the Orthodox Church.
And then the Church Fathers is called Pasca, which is
the Greek word for Passover.
Speaker 4: Okay, So you're saying Orthodox they sell it. They don't
recognize Easter, they recognize past.
Speaker 6: It's the same thing what people in the West call Easter,
which is the Germanic term for that time of the year,
has nothing to do with Ishtar. It's Ostara, which is
that period in the in the season they call Easter,
is the same thing that we call Passover or Pasca.
Speaker 4: Okay, I would disagree that it doesn't have anything to
do with estorte or well, you.
Speaker 6: Can look up the meaning of the word and its
origin and it will show you that has nothing to
do with ishtar or astart.
Speaker 4: I mean, I did look it up, and it does
have a correlation to a starte or a goddess of fortunity.
Speaker 6: Do you know what the word concept fallacy is?
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I just went by the definition of the word and
it says that it has that meaning.
Speaker 6: So if I use the word January, okay, and if
I recall this refers to a time period in the
Roman back in the Roman pagan world, they believed in
the goddess of the god Janus. Okay. If I use
the term January to delineate a time of the year,
does that mean that I'm worshiping Janus?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: But if we have if we're we have like a
separate like if Christians have their own kind of like
separate thing and they can put names on things that
they want to call it, then why would they choose
a name associated with So.
Speaker 6: When Germanic tribes I'm explaining it to you, just like
we still use the term January, it doesn't necessitate worshiping
the god Janus. It's just a name for a time period.
It no longer has the connotation of a deity, and
we still use the term January. So likewise, because a
Germanic tribe called this time period astare and they linked
it not to ishtar ishtar is a Mesopotamian goddess, has
nothing to do with Germanic tribes, because they did have
a pagan idea of you know, the spring relating to
regenerative rebirth.
Speaker 4: Well, we're not talking I'm sorry sinterrupt, but we're not
talking about the German time period. We're talking about a Christians.
Speaker 6: But we are talking about it because that's the origin
of the word. And so when the Germanic tribe, when
you stop, I mean, look, man, this is so hard
to talk to people who can't understand a basic grammatical distinction. Again,
because a German tribe calls a time period a stare
and it marks out a season spring. Okay, when they
get Christianized, if they keep using the word even though
it's referring to Easter, the word no longer signifies or
means the pagan deity, just like the word January no
longer means the god Janus. It's very simple.
Speaker 4: I just I don't agree with saying that the Germanic
people because we're not talking about the Germanic people. We're
talking about the church.
Speaker 6: Okay, so I'm sorry, but I don't think that you
have the mental capabilities to understand that the term or star.
Where do you think the term ostari comes from?
Speaker 4: I mean, I understand that it has some Germanic origin.
It says perhaps it's related to the word astarte, name
of the goddess.
Speaker 6: It is not Astarte. It is the Germanic tribe's word
for the time period. It has nothing to do with Astarte,
nor does have anything to do with Ishtar. Those are
ancient Mesopotamian goddesses.
Speaker 4: Chill, I get what you're saying.
Speaker 6: No, you don't. You you fundamentally are not understanding what
I'm saying.
Speaker 4: Okay, I guess we don't. Don't. I don't agree, but
I don't I understand it.
Speaker 6: You don't understand I do. I understand it's a Germanic word,
So what does it have to do with what does
Oh my gosh, do you remember the first thing I
said to you?
Speaker 4: Resurrection Sunday?
Speaker 6: I don't gosh, it's like the stupidity is just I
can't even like that. The word is not the same
thing as the concept. That's what a word concept fallacy is.
Are you worshiping Janice? And when you write, when you
write the word January out on a check, are you
worshiping Janis?
Speaker 4: No, I'm not. No, I'm not. But if I have
my own special group, right and I and I want
to honor my beliefs, why would I use a word
that I know has connections to paganism?
Speaker 6: I mean, this is just I can't even the word
no longer has the connection? And language is that.
Speaker 4: Way I language? Are you trolling me right now?
Speaker 6: I mean you're just too fundamentally on a You just
cannot understand the point.
Speaker 4: You can't understand the point. No, j are kidding. Okay,
I'm just gonna go there.
Speaker 6: Let me ask you this. Maybe this will help. Can
you can you restate let's talk about this again, so
you're not you're just not able to understand a word
concept fallacy? Can you restate what I'm arguing for me,
even though you don't agree with it? Can you just
restate what you think my argument is?
Speaker 4: I think I already restated. You said that the word
even though it has Germanic origin, it has a definition.
It doesn't mean that.
Speaker 6: Do you think a word can Let's stop. Let's about
the word kid. Okay, the word kid is that a
child or a goat?
Speaker 4: I mean it's depending on the context.
Speaker 6: Exactly, So a word can have different reference. That's the
word concept fallacy problem. So the word itself doesn't necessitate
there's no necessary connection between that word and a goddess
or a demon. Do you understand because the word January
no longer means genus, it's.
Speaker 4: Still it still means, it still means genus.
Speaker 6: It does not mean that for us nowadays, nobody, nobody
believes that the god Janice is honored when we write
out our checks in January. My birthday is in January.
Still be Oh my gosh, this is just too stupid.
I can't you just literally cannot grasp something that's about
I think you need about a one hundred IQ at
least to understand this. Dell, Hello, yep, hey.
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 12: I just wanted to the evangelical that came on made
me want to speak because I've been currently delving into
some things and trying to come to understand, and I
still have to do a lot of searching and researching,
but I've been learning a lot about Protestantism and you know,
what I was taught growing up, and the more I
look into it, the more I look into you know,
Martin Luther and what he used for his sources, and
then the removal of the apocrypha from the sixteen to
eleven King James version, just time after time within the
Protestant Reformation, including all these denominations and where their belue
systems come from.
Speaker 5: A lot of it keeps going back to Judaism.
Speaker 12: And you know, I don't have all the answers on this,
and I'm still trying to learn, but I know.
Speaker 6: All the all the classical reformers are under some sort
of Judaizing influence tos on degree.
Speaker 5: Yes, so.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so you know I'm not, for example, we're supposed
to just go with We're just supposed to just go
with masoretic text that rabbinic authorities that reject Jesus said,
like why says who? It's all premise and they're not
actually being a church with authority. Oh you just do
what the Jews said. Do you have a question let's
get let's get through this way. What's your topic or
question or what.
Speaker 12: Well, what's a good way that I can debate with
these people, especially since you know, they believe in soul
scriptura and they believe that it's really more of a
feeling than like, you know, man's tradition or the ways
of man, you know, to refute this stuff and to
argue this stuff, I just don't really have enough good sources.
Speaker 6: Well, I would say, go watch my talks on the
formation of the Biblical canon, and that will help arm
you with that information. Tristan. Unfortunately, no, not that, Tristan.
Notice here pretty common knowledge. January is the month named
after Janus, the god of beginnings and transitions, the two
face god. So I guess every time that we I
don't know, my birthday is in January. So I guess
because my birthday is in January, I am in inextricably
bound up with worship of the god Jenus. So everybody
riding out January, you're a two faced a Janice worshiper.
This is how silly this is. This is so I mean,
I'm trying really hard to be patient with explaining grammar.
This is how grammar works, guys. It's not that difficult
if you stop and think about it. Okay, the word
kid doesn't have one reference. The word January. Back in
the Roman time, the Roman calendar right was in honor
of a deity Janus. Nobody in the world today believes, conceives, cares,
or thinks that the month January is in any way
connected to the god iss Jenus. It does doesn't matter
anymore that it was Janus at one time. So likewise,
if a Germanic tribe considers a time period in the
year Ostare or springtime when they're Christianized and they become
Christians and they celebrate Easter or Passover, the word Easter
no longer has the deity connotation anymore. It has changed
in its meaning because words evolve and change. There's flexibility
in language. All very low iq stupid people, and this
is not me, this is Saint Basil. Basil says, dumb
people believe that words only have a single reference, and
they can't understand flexibility and nuance and polyvalence multiple meanings.
And she even understood that the context can change the
meaning exactly. The context of today is not first century Rome,
where it would have necessarily been connected to the worship
of the god Janus. Nowadays, nobody believes that the context
has changed the meaning of the word January, which nobody
thinks about jenis It is irrelevant. The meaning has changed
and for some reason, I don't exactly.
Speaker 5: Know what it is.
Speaker 6: And I'm not meaning to be mean or pick on people.
There's something about words and language that not intelligent people
cannot figure out. It's like it mystifies them. They can't
figure it out. It's like whoa what They cannot conceive
of flexibility in language or that a word refers to
different things in different systems or contexts. It's bizarre. I
don't know what it is or why people have a
hard time with this. I think that some people just
cannot think at multiple levels or at multiple tears. And
it's not even that difficult of a question. It's not
even metaphysics. People say, oh, it's this is hard metaphysics. No, No,
this is grammar, dude. Basic grammar tells you that one
word can mean different things at different times and even
over time. Twenty one percent of America reads at a
sixth grade level or below. In fact, I think we
just saw this It's in one of Basil's letters where
he says, not everybody should do theology. It's not for everybody.
And he says something defective. I'm going for memory, something
that I read fifteen years ago. He says something like
many heretics just simply mess up grammar, like they make
a grammar mistake. In fact, if you listen to doctor
Branson's talks, he talks about the Eunomians. According to Basil,
it's like they couldn't even make basic grammar distinctions, the
way that words work, how we predicate things, subject, predicate
one many in language. It's in one of Besil's letters.
I assure you it's there. I'm not making it up.
Go ahead, Tristan, what's up?
Speaker 5: Heyboddy, can you hear me? Uh huh?
Speaker 9: So, I guess they should start with the background for
my personal background.
Speaker 6: Okay, we don't need a whole I'm not trying to
be rude, but can you get to the point to
the question.
Speaker 5: We don't need a story about Pentecostalism.
Speaker 9: Okay, it seems to be growing at quite a fast
rate compared to these other charismatic like non denominational or yeah, anyway,
and I was just wondering, there's there's a group of
Oneness Pentecostals.
Speaker 5: That are essentially modalists, and.
Speaker 9: I've been born and raised in this one as Pentecostal church.
Speaker 5: I still attend there, but.
Speaker 9: I'm just trying to figure it out of is there
a logical fallacy with what you would consider the heresy
of modalism or is it just a heresy because well.
Speaker 6: It would depend it would depend on which person that
you're talking to in order to specify, like, is it
actually just a linguistic problem, because it could be or
it could actually be a specific like straight up, it
could be either one, and it just depends on who
I'm talking to. But it's pretty I mean, it should
be pretty clear. We've had multiple modalists call in. Like
if you read John fourteen, for example, Jesus says that
if you love me keep my commandments, I will pray
to the Father, and the Father will send you a
helper that he may abide with you forever. Okay, that's
clearly three persons. So a modalist would read this and say, well,
it may appear that way, but it's actually just Jesus
talking to himself about what he will do. Okay, So
now God's schizophrenic because all of these passages that show
distinction have to be reinterpreted or retooled or ignored because
the assumption is that, well, there's only one hypostasis. Okay.
So what most heresies do first and foremost is that
they take one verse or one assumption and they squeeze
everything into that. So everything must be cut off and
retooled and reinterpreted to fit the one verse or the
one presupposition that God is just one person. Where do
you get the idea that God is just one hypostasis?
So I would say, first pre subpositional critique would be,
there is no verse that teaches that. In fact, there
are dozens and dozens of verses in the Old Testament
that teach the triad, that teach multiplicity in God. I've
done lectures on the dozens of passages in the Torah
alone that teach the triad. So where are we getting
the assumption that God is only one hypostasis? Who said
where is this?
Speaker 5: Yeah? I feel like.
Speaker 9: I feel like there's a couple of verses.
Speaker 5: And you probably heard all the arguments.
Speaker 9: Hero Israel, the Lord of God is one is a
very famous one.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but the Old Testament. The Old Testament also explains
that oneness to be the shared divine nature that yahweigh,
his Angel and his spirit have. So again, that's just
picking the verse that talks about God's unity. And by
the way, mentioned it mentions God. It mentions three the
heroes or the Lord of other the Lord is one.
That's three, right, three and one.
Speaker 5: But when you see the Angel of the Lord in
the Old Testament, is that supposed to.
Speaker 6: Be Jesus or Yeah, of course Jesus himself identifies that
he's that he's the Angel Lord. Who do you think
Abraham worshiped? And he face to face with Abraham majoys
to see my day and saw it was glad.
Speaker 5: So the question is why couldn't that be? Yeah?
Speaker 6: Way, or no one has seen the Father at any time,
Jesus says in John, So how is that God the Father?
When God the Father has no form and no one
has seen the Father at any time.
Speaker 9: So when God picks up Moses, Sorry if I'm not
trying to be super argumentative, I'm just trying.
Speaker 5: To think, and you're helping me.
Speaker 6: It's fine.
Speaker 9: When when God picks up Moses and puts him in
the cleft of the rock and hides him, and you know,
starts walking away.
Speaker 5: Who who is that supposed to be? Well?
Speaker 6: If no one sees the Father at any time? And
Jesus says Jesus, Jesus says, Moses wrote about me. If
you believe Moses, you would believe in me. For Moses
wrote about me. And if Moses and the elders go
up on the mountain and have a meal with God,
and if Abram had a meal with God and no
one sees the Father, who could it be? Who does
Paul say in se Corinthians three, Moses saw face to face?
Speaker 5: Are you there?
Speaker 6: Hello?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 7: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 6: And seon Corinthians three, Paul says that Moses went up
and saw someone face to face, and that that person
that he saw, that glory is reflected onto Moses. Whose
glory was it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 6: Exactly, so many, many, many times. The New Testament explains
that it was Jesus at Mount Sina, it was Jesus
in the desert, it was Jesus with Abraham.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 9: Uh and then uh so when it says that God
was manifest in the flesh, obviously, I could see how
you would.
Speaker 6: Yeah, God the son. The second hyposides, but.
Speaker 5: It doesn't it doesn't clear. It doesn't make that distinction.
Speaker 6: I don't think have you read John one.
Speaker 5: In the beginning was the word? The word was with God?
Speaker 6: The word well the rest of the passage, because the
word the same word, the same word in verse one
is the one who became flesh and dwelt among us
verse fourteen, Right, yeah, not the Father. The word of
the Father became flesh.
Speaker 5: Does it say the word of the Father?
Speaker 6: Verse fourteen? And do you have your Bible? Are you
looking at it?
Speaker 5: Is?
Speaker 6: What does verse fourteen say? Are you there? Are you
cutting out? I think maybe you're cutting out?
Speaker 9: Sorry, Whenever I turn away from whenever I open a
different app it cuts out.
Speaker 6: Can you can you see one fourteen? Yes, okay, go ahead,
go ahead and read that.
Speaker 5: And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Speaker 9: And we have seen his glory, glory as of the
only son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Speaker 6: Now and we're not going to go to Ezekiel. But
if you look at Ezekiel one to eleven, there's a
specific statement that this one riding the chariot like a
son of man is called the glory of Yahweh. So
who is the glory right here? In John one four.
Speaker 5: The son?
Speaker 6: Okay, now read verse eighteen.
Speaker 9: Okay, no one has ever seen God, the only God.
Speaker 5: Who is at the Father's side. He has made him known.
Speaker 6: What what do you reading to read again?
Speaker 5: This is the ESV.
Speaker 9: No one has ever seen God, the only.
Speaker 5: God who is at the Father's side. He has made
him known. A right.
Speaker 6: So in other words, the New King James reads, no
one is seeing God at any time. The only begotten
Son in the bosom of the Father has declared him.
So that second quote God mentioned there is God, the
Son the word.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 9: So it's not that there's a logical fallacy, but the
scripture builds it so that it can't be modalism.
Speaker 6: Yeah. I mean there's just like countless passages in the
Old and the New Testament. I mean, let's let's go
to Isaiah. Let's go to Isaiah eleven.
Speaker 5: Okay, because I feel like there's some.
Speaker 9: Let me get my Bible because it's, like I said,
the app is being weird. I feel like there's a
lot of Trinitarians that, whether they know it or not,
fall into modalism.
Speaker 6: I mean, we could be, but I don't know how
that would That would by definition not be trinitarian if
it was modalism. I mean, the only trinitarian theology that
we recognize or affirm or think even exists is Orthodox
monarchical trinitarianism. That's it. The Father is the one God,
and he shares that deity with the Son that he
generates in the spirit that he spir rates, and they
endwell one another in a perfect union, a perfect parachuresis
that is the one God. That is the only trinitarian
theology that we think exists. We don't think Protestants and
Roman Catholics have a coherent Orthodox trinitarian theology. And the
one exception might be that technically Uniates do confess the
same trinity as Us. But I have a talk after
you and I have this talk, I want them, for
the sake of the audience, points out that I've got
various talks actually on the subject. You can come down
here too. Is Jesus God and is God a Trinity?
Is a talk I did many years ago that is
still relevant. And then I also have a talk called
the Jewish Trinity refuting the Unitarian presuppositions of the Old Testament,
and have a talk about the Trinity in the Torah specifically,
So that talk is right there. So there's three talks
that I would recommend for people who want to deeper
dive on the subject matter. But go ahead.
Speaker 5: You were directing me to Isaiah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so we look at Isaiah eleven. Okay, So just
read one and two there.
Speaker 9: And there shall come forth a rod out of the
stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of
his roots, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit
of counsel, and my spirit of knowledge, and of the fear.
Speaker 5: Of the Lord.
Speaker 6: So in verse two you have all three persons of
the trinity you mentioned right there, the spirit of Yahweh
well rest upon him. Do you agree that this is
a famous Messianic prophecy. I agree, Yeah, So there's three
persons right there.
Speaker 9: Yeah, because because when when I I guess, when I
read it with my with my understanding, when I see
the spirit of the Lord, I just think, you know, God,
I don't I don't necessarily see because because God is
a spirit.
Speaker 6: Okay. In John one that we just read one of
those reference does not become incarnate one of them does.
Do you remember that that we just read? Yes, no
one has seen God or God the Father at anytime.
Jesus later in the Gospel of John specifies that no
one has seen the Father at any time, and then
John one fourteen and John one eighteen specified that the
Word and Son of God did become manifest. So that's
a queer distinction. Look at Isaiah forty two, okay, and
read one and two.
Speaker 9: Behold my servant, whom I uphold my intellect, and whom
my soul delighted. I have put my spirit upon him.
He shall bring fourth judgment to the gentiles. He shall
not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to
be heard in the street.
Speaker 6: Okay, So who's speaking in verse one? Do you think.
Speaker 5: I believe that would be the Lord as in Jehovah?
Speaker 6: About who about his servant? Who's the servant here?
Speaker 5: Jesus?
Speaker 6: Okay? How many is that?
Speaker 5: That's too?
Speaker 6: And then what's the spirit there?
Speaker 5: I have put my spirit upon him? Right?
Speaker 6: That's three?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 9: So when so when God moves upon the face of
the deep, sorry to jump around, that he is in
the form you would say the Father is in the
form of a spirit.
Speaker 6: Right, the Father is in a form of a spirit. No,
the Father is distinct from the spirit.
Speaker 5: So what form would you say the Father.
Speaker 6: I don't know what you mean by forms. I mean
if you come over here to go ahead, I guess.
Speaker 5: It says that God. It says that God is a spirit.
Speaker 6: Yeah, God is spirit. That doesn't mean that God is
the Father is identical to the Holy Spirit, right, Because
Jesus says that we must worship him in spirit and
in truth. So God in terms of his nature is spiritual.
He's not physical. He doesn't have location, he doesn't have
like you can't encapsulate or you know, define him or
say that, you know, God is that idol over there, right.
And then Jesus says that he must be worshiped in spirit,
that is, in the Holy Spirit. Because that passage says
that he that believes in me out of his heart
will flow a river of life giving water, right, which
is a reference to the Holy Spirit. So that doesn't
mean that that doesn't mean that God the Father is
identical to the Holy Spirit. Right.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to wrap my head around that because I
get so, let's.
Speaker 6: Let's spirit Okay, let's wrap up. Let's go to John sixteen. Yeah, sixteen,
he said, Now read verse seven to ten.
Speaker 5: Okay, nevertheless, I tell you the truth.
Speaker 9: It is expedient for you that I go away, broth,
I go not away. The comforter will not come unto you.
Speaker 6: Okay. So who's going and who's coming?
Speaker 5: Here? Jesus is going and the comforter, which is.
Speaker 6: God, it's the Holy Spirit. How can they be identical
if one is going and one is coming.
Speaker 9: Well, I feel like the traditional thing here would be.
And again, I'm I'm trying to balance.
Speaker 6: What tradition really what tradition, because the church is tradition,
is what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: Everyone seems to have their own tradition. But I get
I get where you're coming from.
Speaker 6: The sorry, so okay, well from the first okay, in
the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth century,
what did that church confess tradition or.
Speaker 5: Mine most of your tradition? Definitely?
Speaker 6: Oh, I mean except for the modalists, except for Sabellius.
Speaker 5: Right right, Okay, there was early church fathers. Yeah, we're modalists.
Speaker 6: They weren't church fathers. They were herod sics like Sabellius
that were modalists, but not church fathers. Church fathers are
people who teach what we teach. So again, where in
this passage do you see an identification of the two,
Because it sounds like you keep when you when I
bring it up, you keep saying, well, it's God. Do
you believe that the word God has a single reference
because that might actually be the source of the grammatical
mistake here. What do you think God, Do you think
it only refers to a single Unitarian essence When you
say yes, okay, that's the error right here. Because the
word God, even in the scriptures, can refer to multiple things.
It's not a single reference term. God can pick out
the hypostasis of the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the
divine essence, divine energies and operations, and it can pick
out angels, demons, and humans. I have said, ye are God's.
So this is a Muslim mistake. Muslims make the same
mistake where they think that the word God only refers
to a single Unitarian being or essence, and it is
not the case in scripture. In fact, it refers to
all the things that I listed. So your mistake is
first and foremost thinking that the word God has a
single reference. It doesn't. It refers to Jesus as for example,
there's none good but God talking about God the Father.
Even in John one that we just read, you saw
that the word God has multiple reference. In one passage
is referring to the Father, in another passage referring to
the Son. So let's look at verse fourteen here in
let's read twelve to what.
Speaker 5: Do all modalists be? Unitarian and nature?
Speaker 6: Yeah, but my point is that my point is that
you cannot prove or demonstrate that the word God has
a single reference or meaning. In fact, it doesn't.
Speaker 5: No, I guess, I guess. So what they would say
would be that those are titles.
Speaker 6: Okay, I understand that's what they would say. But I
want you to read twelve to fifteen of what of
what the same chapter that we're in.
Speaker 9: Okay, Sorry, I have yet many things to say unto you,
but you cannot bear them now. Helbeit when he the
spirit of truth has come, he will guide you into
all truth. For he shall not speak of himself, but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.
Speaker 6: Okay. And if he's not speaking on his own authority,
whose authority is he's speaking on.
Speaker 5: And this is still about the comforter right, who is
the spirit right? Huh? Would you say Jesus or God
the Father.
Speaker 6: God the Father is the source and origin of all
things in the trinity, So it would be God the Father,
who is the fount, the source, the one God. For example,
a Nicien Creed says, I believe in one God, the Father.
The Father is the source, fountain archade. So he will
only speak what he hears, just like Jesus says. He
only speaks and obeys and does what the Father says.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 6: And then now reverse fourteen.
Speaker 9: He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine
and shall show.
Speaker 5: It unto you.
Speaker 6: And then reverse fifteen.
Speaker 9: All things that the Father has, all things that the
Father hath are mine. Therefore said I that he shall
take of mine and shall show it unto you.
Speaker 6: So there's a trinitarian exchange here going on in these
roles in salvation. And there's nothing in this passage that
makes them all the same he.
Speaker 5: Other than we would both agree that they're all God.
Speaker 6: If these the word God referring to the divine nature, yes,
they all have the same essence or nature. But they
are not all the same person or hypostasis.
Speaker 5: That's tough.
Speaker 6: Well, it's because it's just renitarian Theald.
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, I totally see I see it, and in
a lot of ways, I think I think we're pretty close.
You would disagree, but hold on.
Speaker 6: I want you to go down to verse twenty eight.
Speaker 5: Twenty eight.
Speaker 9: I came fourth from the father, and I'm come into
the world again.
Speaker 5: I leave the world and go to the father.
Speaker 6: So how many is that?
Speaker 5: That's two there?
Speaker 6: Yeah, Now is he going to himself or is he
really going to the father?
Speaker 5: I guess he's rejoining with himself and his ends.
Speaker 6: How would he rejoin with himself? That doesn't even make
any sense. I mean again, let's go back to John one.
Did the father become flush?
Speaker 5: The father sends himself?
Speaker 6: Where are you getting that? It never says that in
John one. We just read John one a few minutes ago,
you remember us.
Speaker 5: Then it uses the son the father sent the son language.
Speaker 6: Oh so now now it's just language, even though it
literally says no one has seen the father, but the
word that is the son became flush.
Speaker 5: Couldn't that hold on?
Speaker 9: I'm not trying to be again super couldn't that still
be a true statement, because Jesus is man and God
is a spirit there where we must worship him.
Speaker 6: And you're confusing these terms. The fact that God is
spirit means that his nature is not material, physical, composed, changeable, right.
It does not mean that God's nature is the Holy Spirit.
They're distinct things. So you keep falling back into the
word concept fallacy that the word God just refers to
a unitarian simple essence. And I'm telling you that the
word God in even in verse eighteen, no one has
seen God at any time. The only begotten son in
the bosom of the Father has declared him, and in
the Greek it is exegeted him explained him. The son
exegetes or explains the Father. That's two, that's not one.
It's actually very simple. It's just that you have to
accept that the Bible t each is both, not either or.
And the thing about the Bible is that you have
to do you have to do justice to all the passages.
You don't take one passage that you think, well, there's
just one unitarian entity in every passage that has distinct language.
I just reinterpret that to mean that they're identical. So
now you have a schizophrenic deity.
Speaker 5: You mean where he's talking to himself and such.
Speaker 6: The spirit does not speak on his own authority. Who
is the authority if they're all the same.
Speaker 5: Oh, I see what you're saying. Sorry, I see it now, man, Okay.
Speaker 6: So look, just go to my just go to my
videos where I go in through all the passages. You're
gonna need to go through all the passages. And I
appreciate your calls. A great conversation, and I'm not at
all trying to fuss with you or or be rude
to you or whatever. Aurn Bazanian watch this be that
black dude. I was my white boy, white boy. What's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 6: All right? He won't he can't connect Reyes Moonacchi Monachi minachi.
So a lot of people having a hard time connecting munachi.
You want to I mute?
Speaker 5: Oh all right, ta can you hear me?
Speaker 6: Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 5: Man? Thank God, bless you, and a happy resurrection day.
I have just a quick question, maybe or two or
three of after we have time. I do believe that
we should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But if
I had to.
Speaker 11: Align myself with any religion, I would probably say I
will be closer to Pentecostalism, But in the last few
years I've realized that there's like different kinds of Pentecostals.
The one that I follow is more of that we
believe in the Trinity, which would be that we believe
in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We
believe that Jesus Christ that are across and he was resurrected.
Speaker 5: In three days. We also believe that.
Speaker 11: We don't pray to marry or the statue or any
statutes or sayts or icons. So my question is, are
you against all Pentecostals?
Speaker 5: Is there?
Speaker 6: Yes, it's all completely fraudulent and a sham. Correct And
why is that for all the reasons that I laid
out in the first hour.
Speaker 11: Oh okay, I actually you saw your your YouTube video
online like just a few minutes ago, so much.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's fine, No, that's fine. I mean, I just
I can just I can just read state in brief
that God always gave a liturgical pattern of worship, and
so from the outset that would disqualify all Pentecostal charismatic groups.
Number two, there is no new divine revelation after the
death of John the Apostle, the Bible itself, and the
Early Church condemned Montanism, and so it rejects the idea
of any new, ongoing public divine revelations. And three, the
word tongues in the First Corinthians is known languages. There's
nothing at all about gibberish. Paul's talking about noetic heart
prayer in First Corinthians fourteen nothing to do with gibberish.
So those three simple points, I think immediately disqualify all
forms of Pentecostal and charismaticism.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I agree with you with the Jewish party, I
fully agree with what that part.
Speaker 6: What was that you agree with?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 11: I'm sorry, I do agree with the jibberish part that
there are certain individuals that they pretend to speak in tongues.
But I would say that that the gift of tongues
still exists, though is they so not?
Speaker 6: Everyone may and the gift of different kinds of the
gift of tongues. According hold On, the gift of tongues
is stated in terms of the definition of the Greek
word to be a known language distinct from other nations
or languages.
Speaker 11: Okay, But I also want to address like the First
point you mentioned, we'regard to the highcle of what was
the terms that you use?
Speaker 5: The normal one point that you mentioned.
Speaker 6: That God has always told his people to worship liturgically
and not in gibberish and flopping around and whatever.
Speaker 5: Okay, So are you saying that, let's say we need
to because I do apologize, I'm not.
Speaker 11: I'm not too familiar with the Orthodox views. I'm a
little bit more culture. I understand Catholics a bit more.
But are you saying that if let's say we need
to reach out to God, we would have to go
through a hierarchy of individuals.
Speaker 6: I didn't. I'd never said anything like that. I said
that liturgical worship, ordered patterned worship that the temple and
the synagogue had, that the early church set up. It's
apostolic liturgical worship based on those things. Okay, So like
a pastor and the no no liturgical worship it meaning
all the things that, for example, you see in an
Orthodox church or a Catholic church, what you think is Catholic,
those elements of vestiments, priests, imagery, icons, all of that
that existed in the temple and the synagogue. That is
the liturgical pattern of worship David psalms are meant to
be sung in a liturgical ordered worship service. There is
no chaos, there's no gibberish, there's no none of that,
No rock bands, none of the.
Speaker 11: Uh So, when the disciples were being persecuted, did they
have any of those wargicalup.
Speaker 6: Absolutely they did, yep.
Speaker 11: And and so what if what about the like Christians
in Africa now we are being tortured and they're hiding
in worshiping God. But in hiding are they required to
have Like my point is, do you need to have
that for you to praise God? If let's say, let's
say we go with worst case scenario. If let's say
you have individuals are being tortured.
Speaker 6: So you're talking about out of the norm instances which
don't make the norm. I'm talking about the norm of
what God established. Do you believe that God established in
the Old Testament liturgical worship.
Speaker 5: I believe that. I believe that.
Speaker 6: It's a simple question, man, So you're not gonna answer
my question. You're not gonna answer my question. But once
you're not gonna answer my question, I asked you answer,
But that's not an answer. You said after Jesus came,
I said in the Old Testament? Did God establish liturgical worship.
Speaker 5: In the Old Testament? I guess, based on your definition,
I would say.
Speaker 6: Yes, okay, how did Jesus worship?
Speaker 5: Well, the way Jesus worship was pringing directly to God.
Speaker 6: Did he attend the face and go to the synagogue
in the temple?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 6: Okay, so he worship liturgical?
Speaker 5: Oh? Is that? Is that what you mean by that?
Speaker 6: Okay? You don't even know what the words. So you
want to debate something and you're not familiar with these terms, man,
you know, I mean, I'm not trying to be rude
with you, mean to you, man, but you don't know
anything about this topic. So you're not in a position
to debate it. And let's move on to the topic
about languages. Where do you get that it's Gibberish?
Speaker 5: No, no, I'm not saying that it is true. I
thought that's wird.
Speaker 6: That was okay.
Speaker 11: So, but the thing is that I do believe that
certain individuals do use speaking in tongues as jib British,
but I do not believe that all individuals are speaking Gibberish.
Speaker 5: I do believe that you can have to give those
speaking in tongues.
Speaker 6: Okay, where in the usage in the New Testament when
the word means a known dialect do you get that
it's not a known dialect.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I'm not falling.
Speaker 6: I'm not follow with a with your question, because when
people in charismatic Pentecostal, when people in charismatic and Pentecostal
churches are doing their glossal alia, where do you get
any of that in the New Testament when the word
itself means a known dialect or language.
Speaker 5: I think it's yeah, it's in the New Testament. Let
me see. I actually don't have the worse in front
of me.
Speaker 6: Now, okay, well, I've got the Greek term right pull
writer pulled up and it means a known language.
Speaker 5: Oh, let's see.
Speaker 11: Oh my gosh, patients, my friend, patients.
Speaker 5: Okay, but I I know you have other individuals who
want to speak as well.
Speaker 11: Maybe my last question that I have for you is
that I'll look into this, But I know there's some
vible version in the New Testament that states at the
gift of tongue, individuals will have the church kinds of gifts.
Speaker 5: One of them is the speaking of tongues. But maybe
my other question I.
Speaker 6: Have is what do you think that means? Man? When
I'm I can look at the Greek definition right here,
what do you think it means?
Speaker 5: Do you have the version in front of you can?
Speaker 6: Well, it's first Grianthian, it's thirteen twelve, thirteen fourteen, And
I'm telling you that the word glosa means a language
or dialect used by a particular people distinct from other nations.
So that means it's a known language.
Speaker 11: Thank you for a pointing me to corinthis. Yes, I
do have more quarentius often so another miraculous powers to another,
prophecy to still another, distinguishing between parents, still another, different
kinds of tongues, and get to another interpreting tongue.
Speaker 5: So what do you understand when you when you hear that?
Speaker 6: Okay, what did I just say? Like I'm not, Oh
my god, this is so difficult. Like five times I
just told you what the word means tongues?
Speaker 5: What does it mean? I think you meant.
Speaker 11: Dialect, the interpreting dialect, And there is like a lady
putting a lot of smiles.
Speaker 6: A known dialect means a own language.
Speaker 5: Man, Yeah, but what songues?
Speaker 6: It literally just means the languages that nations speak like,
that's literally what it means speaking a language like Russian
or speaking uh, you know, Greek.
Speaker 5: Is there is there a language that is that mankind?
What is there? Is there any language that that that
is not within this realm of within our human world?
Spiritual language?
Speaker 6: Uh that if you talk about First Corinthians where Paul's
talking about the language that is not known, that's not
an actual verbal thing. That's him praying in his spirit.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but that's the form of communication.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but it's not the word glosa. It's a different
I mean, it's the it's the word there meaning inner
prayer in his spirit. It's not gibberish and yapping.
Speaker 11: No, no, I definitely agree with it with the gibberish
and japping, for there's people or pretending to be speaking tongues.
But what I believe in what I understand is that
because let me put it that, we don't understand it.
Speaker 6: No, no, no, And I'm disagreeing with that. And I'm saying,
I'm saying that nothing that occurs in the charismatic sphere
at all is anything in the New Testament, none of
it nowhere, whether it's the gibberish, people pretending to speak
in tongues or people claiming that they are speaking in
the language that no one knows. None of that is
in the New Testament or at all, what's going on
in Paul's writings. That's what I'm claiming.
Speaker 11: And then what about it in the towns of Pentecost
when they spoke over one hundred they've spoken with the
languages in languages that.
Speaker 6: Are the miracle. Is everybody hearing the message in their
tongue that means known language, known dialect.
Speaker 5: But it doesn't limit it to non languages.
Speaker 6: Oh my god, how would it if you hold on, man,
hold on, how would a bunch of people from different
nations who are gathered there hearing it in their dialect?
What would be the point of unknown dialects in that?
Speaker 5: That's It's like, okay, so do they all understand? In
other words, do they owners in each and every dialect? Oh?
Speaker 6: Man, It says that they heard. It says that they
heard the message in their language. So when a Greek
guy goes there and Paul Peter's preaching, he here's the
message in Greek Greek.
Speaker 5: And that's my point.
Speaker 6: So none of this has any So none of this
is charismatic stuff. Dude, None of this is the charismatic nonsense.
Speaker 5: Okay, this is my question. If he understudy in Greek,
does that mean he understoody in Hebrew?
Speaker 6: No, the Hebrews.
Speaker 11: The languages that they understood place on what they knew,
So there's no limitation of what possible languages came.
Speaker 6: It's known languages. There is no unknown language. It would
even make it if it wouldn't, It wouldn't even make
sense for an stop interrupting me, man, Why are you
doing this? Why are you trying to yap over me?
It's a simple point. A Hebrew, here's the message in
his native tongue. Hey, Greek, here's the message in his
native tongue. You're telling me that because they're hearing it
native tongues. There are infinite unknown languages that are also
being heard. That is that is insane, not that.
Speaker 5: They're hearing, just that the possibility exists that you know,
where are you getting that? Languages that we hear within
the world. There there's also languages there are unknown, which.
Speaker 6: Are what I where are you getting that?
Speaker 5: Cool?
Speaker 6: Where are you getting that? When literally the word means
a known language or dialect.
Speaker 5: Well, I would say that's your definition of this word.
Speaker 6: But my definition. Do you understand that? I am at
where do you think of getting? Did I have it
pulled up on screen? The Greek definition from strongs my definition?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I can't see you. I'm sorry, I'm actually on
I can't see your screen. But I'll take.
Speaker 6: Your word for it. It's strong, is the word?
Speaker 13: Yeah?
Speaker 11: I guess so like you asking me where do I
get it from? But how do you know that it's
being limited to.
Speaker 5: Only the word?
Speaker 6: So now you're making an argument from silence when there's
absolutely no reason to believe a passages it says that
the hearers we're hearing it in their native dialect, that
there's unknown What would be the point? Do you understand
how dumbness is?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 6: So God is transit It is stupid. It's really stupid.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 6: I'm not trying to be mean to you, but let's
stop and think about it for a minute. God is
transmitting a message to an unknown dialect at the same
time that no one else hears or knows. That's insane.
Speaker 5: I understand it.
Speaker 11: The way I understand it is there's a language that's
being funded through to us as you know, humans that
we all could understand.
Speaker 5: But the original source of that language coming in through us,
it's a language.
Speaker 6: That's what are you even talking about now? You're talking
about just total I don't even know what that means.
A language coming into us as totally spiritual where an
act too?
Speaker 5: Is that what I'm trying to say?
Speaker 6: Where are you getting this from? You keep saying that
this is the case, But where is that from?
Speaker 5: Saying that we're limited to certain kinds of languages.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying that, I'm saying what the text, dude,
Stop yap yapping. The text itself tells us what is
going on. It says that the hearers heard in their
native tongues what Peter was preaching. That's the miracle, that's
the reversal of babble. That's what's predicted in Isaiah. You're saying, well,
but but it's an argument from silence, because there could
have been the transmission of unknown languages. Where are you
getting it? But that's an argument from silence that is
nowhere there. What would be the point of transmitting unknown
languages to people that can't hear it?
Speaker 5: Only us here in this world?
Speaker 6: Would hear is this, dude, you're not even making any
This is so stupid. I can't I mean, that is
the dumbest ever. So God is transmitting unknown languages to
people who can't hear or understand it, who aren't there
for an unknown language, and the basis for this is
an argument from silence. I mean, I don't even know
what to say. That is so stupid. It's like people
can't just look at literally what the word means, known dialects, languages.
Go ahead, I'm mute, James, you want to call in
because that's total nonsense. You can't literally believe this, just
absolute stupidity that this guy was saying. You can't honestly
believe that he was correct about that. That makes absolutely
no sense. I can't believe that we have people this stupid.
I mean, it's unreal. Really, I'm mute, man, professor, what's up?
Speaker 5: How you doing? Good? Good?
Speaker 6: What's up?
Speaker 5: Brilliant? No? I frankly, I actually I have fifty percent.
Speaker 13: Agree with you in the notion that the day of
the Pentacles, they actually had their own languages.
Speaker 5: I speak Shona from southern Africa.
Speaker 13: I could probably if I hear one of the opposed
to speaking shorona and speaking the word of God to
me that I agree. However, I'm going to give you
if you would allow me to demonstrate something.
Speaker 5: Let me just use those single words, a single wit.
Speaker 6: All right, Okay, hold on, stop, yeah, let's read this passage.
I mean, this is so similar. This is I'm having
an art tib not cracking up. They were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews,
development from every nation under heaven, and when the sound occurred,
this is Pentecost. The multitude came together and they were
confused because everyone heard them speak in their own language.
They were amazed and marveled. Look, aren't these men Galileans.
How can we hear in our language what they speak?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 6: It lists some of the ethnicities and languages and people
groups that are there. Parthians, Meds, Elamites, those dwelling and Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphilia, Egypt, Libya,
syreene Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs. We hear
the apostles speaking in our tongues Nate languages. Again for
slow boys, you can go look up on blue letter Bible.
What the word glosso means languages. There is nothing in
this passage at all about unknown mystical translation transmissions from
God of unknown languages. That is insane, given what this
passage just says clear as.
Speaker 5: With you, the notion that I want to bring.
Speaker 13: It's what I want to ask you, because I actually
want to ask more like than to actually.
Speaker 5: Take a position as if I know. Here's the thing.
Speaker 13: I'm gonna give you a word, and I'm gonna it's
a sound probably.
Speaker 5: And we're gonna say put right.
Speaker 13: It means nothing, not even in my language, but between
me and you, we want to agree that it says.
Speaker 5: Jam right.
Speaker 13: So no matter whatever way that I'm gonna say right now,
every time when I.
Speaker 5: Say putua to you, you already know exactly what I mean.
It means jump. Here's the thing.
Speaker 13: If I'm gonna give you a series of words to say, oh,
this word means this one to three, then one day
you hear me speaking those words, won't you be able
to determine what I'm actually let's say I'm praying. Won't
you be able to actually determine what I'm praying? Because
I gave you the codes of what I said the
sound every time when I make when I'm saying, I
mean Jim. If you see me say by that time,
you know the guy is saying jump jump.
Speaker 5: Maybe no idea?
Speaker 6: What what is going on here? I don't know what
you're talking about? Man swash?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 6: Charshi? Five dollars? My brain has been alchemically reduced to
reptilian mush by algorithmcdopamine warfare. I tried to read Hollywood,
but no, we already read that. Excuse me, we read
that two hours ago. Culper cat cast two dollars. My
first posca was last night. I Love every second Philly
and the Wolf. Two pounds, Crystal sinnasty Trilli has Risen
alitoty glut goo two pounds. You got a debunk Orthodox Muslim.
I'm tired of him. Can we get him on here?
Maybe we can send him a link to come to
be a five dollars crisis? Risen? What do you tell
people that are serious about Orthodoxy to do? I did
what you told them, find a good parish and a
good priest. I gave it everything, and I kept my
mouth shut. I was received by Chris Mason. Thank you,
Jay good Man let's get here, h five bucks. In
high school, my girlfriend's family went to church in Irvine
with a dude calling himself the prophet Rucus McKinley. He
played funk music and he would wrap the Bible. I
just don't. I mean, people get emotional and they mistake
their emotions for God, and you you can't reason with them.
Here is a Roman Catholic tweeting a bunch of gibbers
that I'm not going to read, so thank you for
sending me money and cussing at me, which I'm not
gonna read. Storm the cat ten dollars. Why are evangelical
churches always simps. They preach this thing that's catered to
women as though it's a man preaching. Well, I mean,
evangelical megachurches have pretty early on had women pastors, women prophetesses,
And this is what we just saw with this Zuzu street, right,
So let's play a little bit more. That I forgot
about this. Several other believers in the room