This debate examines whether Paul was legitimately chosen as an apostle and foundational to Christianity, with Vocab Malone arguing that Paul was Christ-appointed, recognized by the Jerusalem apostles, and his writings constitute authoritative scripture, while Shaman Omar contends that Paul's teachings diverged from Jesus's original message, introducing doctrines like the divinity of Christ and reducing Torah obligations, and that Paul's letters should not be considered scripture. The discussion explores early Christian history, biblical interpretation, and the formation of the New Testament canon.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Paul Is A False Apostle | Debate
Added:them as such and there's nothing that precludes that genre of literature from being counted as scripture when you have love films in scripture.
>> Here's what I'm going to do. Shaman, you have one final rebuttal to that and then we'll move into closing statements which we will kick off with Cab Shaman. Yeah, I mean again we've already went over the Greek word and and in the singular form it means to write which is an act and thus then the plural means writings and and yes it is being interchanged and used as scripture in many ways but if we're talking about the Greek language I can probably pull up more context of the word grapho or graphas that refer to writings than two that were being used as scriptures. That doesn't mean that I'm right. That means that's both are can be true. And what I'm saying is that it's commonly known in English even that they were called Paul's letters to the Corinthians. Paul's letters. So to to superimpose like you know council of nian perspective of actually Paul was writing scriptures and sending it off to random Romans and etc etc is just like uh it it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't necessarily follow right and yet even if by the way very important decrees um of Roman uh decrees and wealthy people were writing multiple versions of the same letter and saying it off completely agree with what Cav is talking about absolutely correct that's why we have a lot of different variations of certain things, certain segments of uh the Genesis flood and Deuteronomy from the Dead Sea Scrolls and and and others, even Enoch 1 as we referred to earlier.
But that does not mean that's what was going on in real time with Paul's letters, that somehow Paul was writing an extra letter for Peter. Uh and and of course, we know that Peter also was arguing with Paul about specific things he was saying. We didn't get into that either, but uh I'll leave it there. I think we're trying to >> All right, let's go ahead and kick it off into closing statements. Uh, CAB, if you'd like to uh start with yours, please.
>> Yes, if I could uh one more time, please share my my screen. Thank you very much.
Appreciate that. Let me go to the right um one here. And um I just feel like it helps to give the audience something they can they can see.
>> Yeah. No, brother, use it. I I agree. I unfortunately I don't I need someone to teach me how to use that tool that would be beneficial, but we'll continue to use it.
So, uh, I brought up in the beginning that if you reject Paul, it affects more than Paul. So, really, this is an attack on the New Testament, which is an attack on Christianity itself. It's good just to recognize that Acts records Paul's calling three times. Half of Acts is devoted to Paul's mission. If Paul is false, Luke's account is deeply compromised. If Luke is compromised in Acts, his gospel witness is also damaged. The anti-Paul claim frackers the New Testament witness. But you have Peter treating Paul's letters with the other scriptures. Paul uh is also his calling is recorded by Luke and as well as his ministry. That's why he has to discount Luke and second Peter as a result of the conclusion he's trying to reach. So if Paul's a false apostle, Acts is unreliable, Luke's testimony is damaged, Peter's judgment's damaged, Jerusalem apostles are implicated, New Testament wisdom fractures, and we don't have any idea of how Christianity spread because Acts is a fictional work. We have no idea how this thing became what it was with with Omar's recollection of casting out Acts. So these questions I do not feel were really ever answered properly. Where did scripture call Paul a false apostle? Because remember I was asking for the witness. Was Luke deceived or dishonest in Acts? Was Peter wrong in second Peter? Were James, Cphus, and John wrong in Galatians 2?
Why did Clement, Ignatius, Paula, Arnaeus, or Trulian, and Cyprian all received Paul explained never happened.
Paul did not invent Christianity. Paul preached Christ. Paul was not self-appointed. He was Christappointed.
He was not against Peter. Peter endorsed Paul. Paul was rejected and was not rejected by the early church. Paul was received across the early church as I showed. The final point is that Paul was not a false apostle because he was called by Christ, recognized by the apostles, endorsed by Peter, defended by Luke, received by the earliest churches, used as authoritative Christian scripture. Fact, fact, fact. And so we have to ask people who are anti- Paul, what basis do you accuse Paul? Why do you reject Acts 9 22 and 26? Why do you reject Peter's endorsement? Why reject the Jerusalem apostles? Why reject the earliest churches? The historic Christian position receives Paul as apostolic. The anti-aul position must explain why the apostolic church got Paul wrong. On what biblical basis do you deny Paul? Why reject those endorsements? I don't think we ever really saw a good answer. And you know his objections that he did raise can all be answered. He said Paul wasn't one of the 12 or you know he wasn't appointed.
That's true. But Christ appointed him as an apostle to the Gentiles. That he was self-appointed. No acts in Galatians show Christ in him. That he contradicted Jesus. Paul preached Christ crucified, risen and Lord that he contradicted Peter. Peter endorsed him. Galatians 2 shows fellowship. That he was against the law. Paul simply rejects the law as a justification. He doesn't reject God's holiness. So I do not think that we really got to a place where those were answered very well. Some of it was based upon misunderstanding, but ultimately I think it's based upon an attack upon the New Testament. Whether that's what he means or not, that is the result. Thank you Sarah for hosting the debate and thank you Omar and thank you audience for listening.
>> Sorry amateur move. I've I've had like the worst allergies going on today so I've been like coughing and sneezing all over myself. So I've been trying to just mute as much as possible. Um and [clears throat] actually for the record before I kick off over to uh Shaman for his closing. Just an FYI, I have been dropping the open panel link over on the horizontal format if you'd like to join in for open panel Q&A. We welcome any and all. You just have to do a quick cam up backstage and wave to me and say hello. That's the only requirement. Uh otherwise, you're good to go in avatar mode. All right, Mr. Omar, to you your closing statement, please.
>> Let me see here. I wish I could figure out how to use your screen here because it'll be much more effective. Okay. Um, so I appreciate the debate. Um, you know, I realize in the middle or threequarters into this that we are arguing from two different perspectives. Uh, and instead of turning this into Jesus is not God and coming against the trinity. uh that affirms that. I could just refer to the fact that that entire um theology is actually created by Paul at least. The seeds of Jesus being God or the Messiah being anything other than a man who would be the king of the Jews as well as a light upon the nations was expanded upon uh throughout time through the ecumenical councils uh that started with Paul. Um again um the um the btheism of Paul, you should look it up yourself.
The merka mystics of the day were the cobblets of their time. The two powers in heavens uh is pretty understandable.
It's it's actually considerably celebrated in old um second temple period Jewish writings of which when you get more familiar with that then you'll see exactly where Paul was coming from.
um they do many mystical practices trying to see their own visions and when they saw Jesus it became uh the perfect example of how Paul can make himself uh important to that and I think that Paul created a religion that uh about Jesus as opposed to exactly what Jesus said.
Now uh I understand that if you believe Jesus in fact is God what I just said makes no sense because then Jesus would have said everything in the Old Testament. And I didn't actually see that angle coming as a distraction or let's just say um uh clouds in the sky, right, of of what I'm trying to point out or discuss. U but again I I like CAB. It was a good conversation. Um so I didn't want to turn it into an anti-trinitarianism thing. Uh I do not uh come after um you know uh Christians as I said from the beginning. of saying that I'm it's an attack is an appeal to emotions because uh if you take away Paul again who did not meet Jesus and his his apostle Luke, you still have half of the New Testament. Okay? And in those New Testament documents uh and by the way go read the Gospel of Thomas which is um which is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls and you see a different picture of Jesus. It's a philosophical picture of a man who was highly intelligent, a mystic um was telling you, you don't need to listen to these Pharisees. God is within and so on so on. A lot of good stuff. Um I would just say uh in closing that Jesus lived a Torah observant life uh even if you think he was the Messiah or not the Messiah. Uh he upheld the Mosaic practices. He kept the Sabbath. He kept the dietary law. He was circumcised. He preached circumcision. He uh what partaked in Passover? If Jesus was the Passover lamb, then why didn't he say that? I think Jesus was an eloquent speaker from everything I've read. And I think that the uh that Moses sitting in the desert for 40 years had 40 years to talk to God. And in that there were five books written, three of which are law called the Torah. So um it's a different subject, but there is no Messiah in the Torah either. But um again, I'm sure we can have many other discussions could see vocab here on this channel. I think Paul's uh letters uh are not scripture.
I think it's very clear that they were letters. I think everyone's heard of Paul's letters to Thessalonians, etc. Um, but they introduced a doctrine that is in the name of Jesus. Uh, very very obviously it's reducing the Torah's obligations to the people. Um, whether it's the Jews or it's to the uh the nations. Um, it it it creates this universalization of faith over law, which Jesus said the opposite of. Um, it spiritualizes the covenant identity. Um whereas the acts um not Luke acts the acts of one is important. You can't just have faith in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, kill someone, then repent and expect to go to a pretty place. Okay. Um it induces um a theology again that's called bitheism. You look it up. I didn't want to get too deep into the weeds with uh with second temple and previous uh Jewish mysticism. But when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. When Jesus said um and then Paul says Christ is the end of the law. When when you know there are a lot of we were talking also by the way about first century um and second century like you know what would be considered Jews or Christians depending on how you went like what about the Edianites um and and there were a lot of Torah observant uh accept people that accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Um and again I mentioned a bunch of other things pertaining to um the dance that would have to happen to be able to accept uh this. There was a lot of circular reason Paul isn't impossible because Paul vision said so. Uh you have to grant Paul's vision is divine. You have to grant that Paul what what Paul saw was in fact Jesus. You have to grant that what Luke is saying even though he asked for contradiction. And I pointed out in the same exact writing of Luke, there are three different variations of the same thing. Doesn't mean that Luke wasn't there in real time or he's not a great historian or a great writer. It has nothing to do with that has to do with the fact that there's it's suspect.
And when there's something that's suspect, it can't be considered the law of God, for example. So the Jews have the benefit of saying that the Torah was uh was given directly from God. The Muslims have the benefit of saying that Muhammad got the divine revelation from the archangel Gabriel and every you know and so we have the we have the Christian doctrine of the New Testament which of course the Muslims I guess kind of believe in um that have some problems in it. You there's an appeal to authority.
Um I like vocab because he's very smart and knows everything he's talking about.
I wish he would have just appealed to his own authority more than reading these you know um Smith or whoever. I don't know who these people are. um special pleading. Paul alone gets to overrule Moses and circumcision, Sabbath and diet, dietary laws because of his private revelation. Um the citing uh the apostles from one who walked with Jesus to one who saw the light is an equivocation from Paul and there's a lot of cherry-picking in the whole thing and then of course there's an argument from silence but then there's an you know uh which we demonstrated as well. Uh overall, I don't think that I'm here that I'm going to convince anyone to do anything to believe or not believe in uh Jesus as Messiah or God. I'm simply saying just look into everything. Look into Paul, look into Luke and let and again even in the modern day court of law, if someone says someone said, that's called hearsay. And so, um I appreciate the time and I appreciate the conversation and good to see you on this channel, uh Kev.
>> Absolutely. And again, kind reminder, the open panel link is being dropped in the live chat over on the horizontal format. If you'd like to join, now is absolutely the time to do so because I don't think we'll be going much longer this evening. All right, a few quick uh small short super chats. Uh number one, James sends in the big Ted says, "Evening Sarah, getting the counter off zero." and then follows up to compliment our sweet, awesome, amazing, best wrench in the business, Uncle Guns, because he is a freaking legend. And then Richie Torres says, "Vocab is smoking this guy." God bless Vocab. All right, fair enough.
>> I've got three people hanging backstage.
Uh, I guess we'll go ahead and get into it.
And if anybody else wants to join, right now is absolutely your time before we uh um because we're going to get through these questions probably pretty fast and then after that since you have not hit your gauntlet mode, we will end. So if you want to ask questions, now's the time to do so. Here we go.
[music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat.
>> [music] [music] [music] >> All right. Short, easy, and sweet. Let me get these two back up here. Uh, okay.
Uh, actually, Spin, I saw you were backstage first. If you have a question for either of the two, feel free to go ahead and ask now. I know the other two already know the rules. Go ahead.
>> Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would Would you mind taking me last, Sarah? I have to roll away for just a minute.
>> Sure. All right.
>> I'm sorry to do that to you.
>> Yep. Brick, go ahead. I know you've probably got a good question or two packed in there.
>> Sure.
Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, debaters.
Thank you, Vocab. Uh, thank you, Shaman Omar. Uh, thank you so much for having this discussion. I know that, uh, it's been a long time coming. Been waiting for about a month and I almost missed it to be quite honest with you and I did not want to miss it. I did not get to see everything. I did not get to hear all of the arguments, but I'm pretty sure I'm familiar enough because I know Omar and I have had a few discussions.
Um, uh, from my understanding, Vocab, you are somewhat of a Trinitarian.
>> He's going by, he's going by CAB now, so we got to all support that. He's rebranding as CAB Malone. appreciate [laughter] >> I [clears throat] I because I was trying to write for these academic conferences and they kept on rejecting me partially because it was under vocab. But yeah, I'm a trinitarian.
>> Okay, very good. I am not uh but I I I still see you as my Christian brother nonetheless. I know that you and I would agree when we say uh Christ is king.
This is simple and uh straightforward.
Uh but that is not the discussion here.
the discussion is Paul and because >> Brick Brick by the way I can grant you Christ as king because the Messiah was the king of the Jews. So if he was the Messiah and I don't see who else could have been uh given the timeline that he had to the Messiah had to come. I would say that Christ would be the king of the Jews as well. No problem.
>> Perfect. Perfect. Well then uh besides that uh I believe also that Paul considered uh Christ to be king. Uh not only did he consider Christ to be king but he too was a Jew just like Jesus himself. Uh and therefore I see Paul as my Christian brother. Uh I also see him as an apostle. Uh but to get into more specifically your argument because you're stating that he is not an apostle rather a fake apostle my question to you will revolve around my understanding of the law.
Um now from my understanding of the law Jesus stated that he did not come to let me make sure I quote it correctly just pulled it up. uh he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets.
No, he didn't come to abolish but to fulfill them. Now fulfillment, my my understanding uh is something along the lines of completion, something along the lines of uh a a uh resolution, uh a balancing, if you will. uh especially if we're talking about the law because the law um pretty much revolves around justice. Would that be accurate to say?
>> Yeah. You you're asking me or Cap?
>> You you Yeah. I just want to make sure we have a >> Sorry, Clay. You said uh G You said Jesus came to fulfill the law.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Sure.
>> What he stated. And if we're talking specifically about the law, need to kind of lay a baseline for what the law is and what that fulfillment is. And would you say that the law uh essentially is justice?
>> I would say that the law would be the the laws in the three of the five books of the Torah.
>> Um okay. So if you say that the law is the five books of the Torah, what would be uh the necessity of having well the five books of the Torah? Would that be to uh to have some sort of uh justice or balance within the system or is it just the law because I said so?
I mean that's a pretty that's an interesting perspective because um because the like I would look at it from the from the Jewish perspective, right?
So you have these Hebrew people that were that were given a book through Moses during Exodus and then therefore they became the covenant of Israel in the Israelites. Right? So I would say that the law uh you know Torah the etmology of Torah means to to to teach and like instruction of law right so it would be considered the Jews would say would be a divine instruction of how to live but but more than that it would be that the the five books this because three of them are the law but the the Torah itself would be the fulfillment or a part of a almost trinitarian fulfillment of you know God uh a book made of five books and the people and encompassing a land right that would be what the Jew that would be the Jews the the Israelite I would say the actual not just Jews but the the 12 tribe explanation of that I would say >> yeah so what you're describing to me sounds pretty much like a nation or a kingdom a country uh and of course within that country the people are subject to a certain standard uh and that would be of course the law but the law itself uh there would be in my opinion uh some sort of standard some sort of baseline to put that upon. So, uh, with the law especially, like, you know, we we could go to the the Greek philosophers, uh, we we could go to, uh, the Hebrews themselves. Uh, essentially, you bring a case before the judge. Uh, you you bring the case and you you weigh the the evidence on the scale to find the justice. Okay? And so within that scale uh you you need to find a balance and understand what each side brings to the table. Uh and so in that my understanding of the law all of itself, it's kind of a circular thing when we talk about justice. It's actually a circular reasoning. A lot of people don't actually understand that about justice, which is no problem for me. I do understand it to be that way be and the reason and now now we're getting into reason not logic but reason why it's circular is because we need a baseline we need an understanding we need an axiom that is the scale this equals this u so are are you kind of following I guess my line of logic and reasoning here >> yeah I mean look at the end of the day it was it was five books which is the Torah which is the laws and the commandments for these people uh not just Jews, the people of Israel and in return they would be given this eternal covenant as they keep the law eternally and then they would have this land. But then there's also the repercussions if they were to break the law. It's very specific that that the law it it says the law is eternal but at the same time the covenant is not eternal because if you break it it's that's one thing that Jews today really like to leave out. Uh it's very specific uh the penalties.
Perfect. Perfect. So then the fulfillment.
>> Am I answering your question, Clay?
>> Yeah. No, that's that was that was perfect. That was perfect.
[clears throat] Yes, there is a >> that's the truth. People like to leave that part out.
>> Yeah. The set set uh I I guess you will punitive uh damages to be repaid. So that's why uh >> otherwise it's not a law. If there's no if there's no penalty for actions or inactions, there's no law.
>> Cause and effect and repercussion from the effect, thus a causation >> universal even.
>> That's what you mean by circular. I I completely agree. Really?
>> Yeah. Exactly. So if we go to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, also life for a life, the blood for the blood, right?
Anything that equals one should also equal one. Now, if we're going to go by that standard and we're talking about a resolution, a conclusion, a fulfillment, if you will, uh then the fulfillment is what really makes the difference here.
Uh would it be anything outside of that fulfillment that should be used upon the standard of that justice or would it just simply be whatever you put on the scale?
Um I mean it's it's um it's called the shama. So the shama is is not just to listen but to obey and to understand. So your job is to have an deeper understanding uh to obey and to hear. Right. So >> perfect.
>> Is that >> Yep. No. And there's a reason why I'm going down this logic. Okay. So >> like it's it's called it's a shama. It's like the It's the Lord is one. It's um >> understanding, purpose, all of that goes into what we put on the scale. But in in the end, what matters is that one equals one, right? So if I put the purpose and the outcome on each side of the scale, the weight, the measure, it has to equal. Actually, it's kind of interesting because in the Shama, so Shama Israel, Adonai, Elohu, uh in English, it means uh here, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one. Uh or her, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one. So if Jesus is Yahweh, then in the Shama, it actually means that Jesus is only God to the Jews then. So interesting part.
>> Okay. Yeah. So um I was distracted there for a sec. I apologize. Uh but okay. So the fulfillment of the law is the purpose here. There's nothing else like so if I have a feeling about my brother, my Christian brother that I don't feel like he's doing something I like, my feelings about it really don't mean squat in the fulfillment in in the balance of justice. Just because I don't like something, in other words, doesn't necessarily mean that it's against the law.
Correct?
>> Actually, uh, no, I would disagree. I don't know about cap. I would disagree actually in, uh, um, in Deuteronomy um, chapter 4 verse 2, it says, "Do not add or subtract from the law." And actually has like the penalties. I think that was probably stoned to death as well.
>> It's actually very very >> on that scripture. than you and I agree.
So my feelings about what my brother has done is not in in consequence here. It's whether he broke the law or not.
>> Yeah. So yeah, I'm sorry. So yeah, sorry. So then we agree.
>> Yeah. Our Yes. Sorry. Our our feeling wouldn't matter because if if we are in that covenant and subscribe to that law as our covenant of our tribe and so on so on so on, then then there there's a specific action that's taken for something else. It's irrelevant of our opinion.
>> Okay. So then this is the conclusion.
>> No, this is perfect. This is perfect.
Yeah. Our opinions don't matter. It's a matter of what the weights and measures uh equal. If it's one, it's one. If it's two, it's two. So now the conclusion on this where where I wanted to to lead us to is if it is the case that my feelings about my brother do not matter, I could sit here and say, you know, I don't like the way that Paul talked to them people.
I don't necessarily like the way that he uh he he understood things. My concern is did he break the law? And that would be where you would need to point to for me >> to for me to understand that this is not a real apostle. This is not a Christian.
This is not a brother of mine.
>> Did he break the law? And here's the funny thing about that. The only the only thing that you can be damned for is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
>> Well, well, okay. So, two two things.
The the Holy Spirit probably we'll get to a second, but the first one, so the answer that's a really good point. I do have a confession, Brother Clay. Uh I actually had a um a massive amount of notes and a whole bunch of stuff organized, including an opener. So, I found and I'm on a different uh computer here and so I I didn't I had like a two different openers I wrote like six months ago. So, I didn't have all my amazing notes, but um the answer to your question about uh so I'm confessing. So, as far as breaking the law, I would say yes. Uh Deuteronomy uh 13 verse 1- uh 5 specifically talks in great detail about prophets and false prophets and the penalty. So if a prophet is one who fortells by dreams uh and makes announcements of signs and wonders and if they don't come true and I would say and I and I have examples of all of Paul's prophecies and I don't know of any that actually came true that would not be generic. You know he was an apocalyp apocalyptic preacher u and and uh and by the way you know just look up Yahweh Katan in in Hebrew. It means little Yahweh. So that's the bot that's the uh the merka component of that. So when you look into that you make it make sense. But I would say that Paul made a lot of prophecies. He said that everyone alive right now was not going to die before the end of days. That's a very big statement. And many false prophets in Judaism had said that from sabotage to Jacob Frank. Okay. And Paul made very specific um endtime apocalyptic prophecies like that too. in Deuteronomy again 13:1-5 specifically tells you um what the judgment of someone who's a prophet and someone who's a false prophet and I believe at on the fifth verse it describes what the punishment is or maybe it's the sixth verse but it's very specific about this >> yeah so okay now now we could get into examples I know that I want to wrap this up yes I already see it um so those specific examples um just as we get into the open panel portion. Uh I know that that's probably where I'm going to focus my attention on now that you said that he broke the law. I want to know exactly what laws he broke. I know you mentioned one. Uh I don't believe that. I really just simply don't believe that. What you just mentioned, I don't believe it at all. Uh but I'm going to go ahead and pass it off. I appreciate you. Uh and definitely worth considering when you state that he broke the law. I will take it seriously and I will examine the evidence. Yes. Thank you.
>> Yeah. I and I apologize cuz I you know uh I just got off a cruise and then I my kids were they like right before this like they missed their flight my my beautiful daughters so I'm like [ __ ] and then I left my actual personal computer and came to the office where my work computer so um I actually have those outlined and it is important it's don't take my word for it um only if I presented specific occasions of the law and again when I say the law I'm talking about the Hebrew law and I and there's I think 11 things that he is attributed to saying or there's nine And then there's an additional eight in the later books.
>> And we can get into what >> we can get into that some >> Hebrew about that Hebrew law and all that and what it actually means to fulfill as well. But anyway, thank you.
Thank you. And thank you Cab as well for sitting patiently. Maybe somebody else will have some questions for you. And thank you Sarah.
>> Yep. Absolutely. Uh let's move on to Mario. If you have a question for either or of Cab and Shaman, feel free to do so now.
Uh, yep. You're good.
>> Now you're muted again. Just push the button once.
>> Oh, my computer is kind of slow. Sorry.
Um, for Sherman Omar, um, >> hello. when you read uh Matthew 5 and and and you talk about how um Jesus says that the law and the prophecy is coming you have to fulfill uh every jot and turtle or else you know um you'll be released in the kingdom of heaven um with your reading of that don't you think that there's a problem when in the very next passages Jesus says for instance um that whereas the Torah says says, "Keep your vows." He says, "Keep if you make a vow, it's of the evil one."
>> Did you get get [clears throat] that?
>> I heard I I didn't capture the whole >> Yeah, Mario. I think you're either your mic sucks or uh your >> reception. The reception is going >> You're either your mic either sucks or you're on the wrong mic. So, I'm going to tuck you backstage. If you have a different mic to switch to, do so and text me in the chat. Otherwise, come back another night.
>> That's okay. It was It was terrible.
>> I'm not trying to avoid the question. I >> No, no, no. I I understand. Um >> Yeah, it was making my speakers go I couldn't really hear.
>> Yeah, it I mean, it is what it is.
There's nothing I can do to change that.
All right. Uh Spin, did you have a question for either or?
>> Yeah. Uh thank you um Sarah for skipping me. Um, I'm going to ask this to both um, Cab Cab and Anchor Baby up there. Um, did Paul have his own did did Paul have his own followers?
>> Yeah, Luke.
Okay.
I I'm I'm I I don't Why would you say Paul Luke was Paul's followers?
>> I mean, where where is that information?
>> I'm not Yeah, I'm not saying it I'm not saying it as like a haha like against him. I mean, I don't Would anyone say that Luke was not a follower of Paul?
that I I I've just never seen.
>> Sorry, sorry. Spin. You mean like follower like like a like you know doesn't mean like apprentice an apprentice or disciple or do you mean like where they worshiped him? You mean like like worshippers because I he follower doesn't necessarily mean anything bad.
>> Mess me I can't say the [ __ ] word >> messianic.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. No. No. I don't believe I'm not aware in any way whatsoever of people worshiping uh Paul in his during his life. No. But followers like you can have an apprentice, you could be considered in a follower. I would say that Luke would qualify as a follower but not in a worshipper. I was I wouldn't take it that far. Would would you would you take it as or would you would you say that or would you know that if he wanted followers to begin with?
>> Well, I mean >> I'm sorry I'm cloudy. Sorry.
>> No, no, no. It's it's been we're good.
Cab spin spin the gentleman down there.
He recently had a stroke. So he we're you know we're with him. Of course, you know.
>> I apologize. I'm >> No, no, no. Don't need to apologize. And you guys should all thank me cuz I brought one of the best Christian trinitarians in the whole game here for for the raging tomato, right, Cab?
Everyone. So, look at them all nodding.
They're all so happy to see you.
>> I'm happy to see them, too. Well, so yeah, we know Luke ultimately should be identified, of course, as a follower of Jesus. Like, if you go to Luke chapter 1, he says, "In as much as many have undertaken to compile."
>> Can I re ask the question because it's not it was kind of And then well one thing that you know to your point real quick is that Paul does talk about divisions in the church at Corenth right and he mentions how some say I follow Cphus I follow Apollos others say I follow Christ others say I follow Paul and Paul says this shouldn't be so there shouldn't be divisions among you and he says were you baptized in my name no you weren't baptized in my name you were baptized in the name of Christ so it does seem like in Corinth they were fracturing off into different factions and there was a Paul party, but he said don't do that. He didn't want a Paul party. So, there was a faction at Corinth that tried to do that and Paul put a stop to it as far as like specific Pauline followers. Okay. So, let can I let me let me digress for just a second.
followers. Meaning, did like did he want the the the worship the did he want the war the people to worship um like did he want them to worship Paul as the and and support him as an apostle?
>> No. to the first question. Yes. To the second question.
>> He did want he he was allowed to have support as an apostle, but he didn't take it from all churches, specifically the Corinthians. He did not let them support him because the sophist did that and Paul seems like wanted to differentiate himself from them. Other churches did support Paul, but he also supported himself as a tent maker. So, some churches gave him support, but his main mission actually was to get money to go to Jerusalem. You see that in all the letters, he's constantly saying, "We're going to take this money to Jerusalem church because they were struggling." And it was sort of a peace offering to bring together the Gentile factions and the Jewish factions. But Paul does say, "Follow me as I follow Christ." In 1 Corinthians 11:1 and that shows you, of course, that his ultimate goal was to get people to follow Christ.
>> Okay. So, I I I'll yield, but I have another question that I just can't put together right this second. Um, >> okay. Well, our time is limited tonight, so uh I'll shift over to Ben and then we'll come back, miss, >> we can I can I just do it right real quick, Ben?
>> Or maybe you could type it out. Okay.
Paul Paul is exemp uh so then Paul is exemplary then right is is that what your pro what your your claim is or claim would be either of you?
I would say so because he did not take money when he had a right to and he put himself at great risk on the behalf of others and even while he's in prison he's still thinking of other people writing letters to them and he also uh made a great effort to have other people be in leadership. So he put Titus in leadership he put Timothy in leadership he was he was trying to establish a whole thing not just about himself. So I was there. So there would be a delegation after >> Yeah. Because he knew he was going to die. In second Timothy, he says, "I'm being poured out like a drink offering.
I fought the good fight. I've run the race." But if you read Titus, he says, "I left you in the islands of Cree, Titus, to set in order what had been lacking." And he says, "You need to appoint men who will be elders and deacons in the churches there." Yeah.
>> So just to spin off of that for just one second, Cab, I apologize. Um the the deacon is is what religious practice was a the the um deacon meant from or or >> great question. There's there's a lot of debate about that. So I just listened to a series of lectures by Luke Timothy Johnson on this on and where they cover that and also another scholar named Douglas Moo. The uh I think the most sensible consensus seems to be that it's roughly based upon synagogue practice where the Jews would have something similar.
>> I've heard I heard that it's somewhere somewhere.
>> It's not identical, but it's similar.
Deacon of course just means servant though. Deaconos just means servant. So it's it's sort of it becomes an office or a title, but it's really one who serves the church in that way. And a deacon is not a teaching ministry like the elder is, but it seems to be based upon second temple Judaism synagogue practice throughout Asia. So el so are you correlating elder in in the same f uh the same way as a deacon? Are you putting them in like the same category?
I'm just trying to understand.
>> They are they are definitely distinct.
And the reason why you know they're distinct is because when Paul gives the qualifications for who can be an elder and for who can be a deacon, the qualifications are not the same.
specifically he starts in chapter three of first Timothy and one uh part of an elder or sometimes translated overseer it's the same Greek word either way usually press budaros is the underlying word it says he must be apt to teach so the deacon is not required to be apt to teach because it's not a teaching position and the elder role is is a more of you we might call rulership or authoritative role there's an element of administration in it the deacon doesn't have that but those are the only two offices of the church. One reason why I'm not a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, they've invented a whole slew of these other offices that are simply not in the New Testament. Worst of all, of course, being the Pope because that certainly is not in the New Testament.
But elders and deacons are two separate offices and they're the only offices really ever mentioned in the New Testament.
>> Okay. So, I have one last question, Sarah, if we have time.
>> Um, >> yeah, go ahead.
>> Where I I I'm Catholic. Okay. just so you're aware.
>> Um, where does where does God fit into in in into the into the picture? I I I mean my belief is God taught God was the um all all power and the teachings of God went to the apostles.
Do you understand my question? Where where does God fit into into this?
>> Fit into which specific thing though? Do you mean what the church is supposed to be or the apostilhip of Paul? I'm not sure.
>> The apostilhip of Paul to stay on prompt.
>> Okay. So in 2 Corinthians, Paul describes himself as an ambassador. An ambassador of course is someone who presents a rulership from one place to another, >> right? He's the he's the presenter and and uh Paul would be the follower at that point, right?
>> No, Paul Paul's the ambassador.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> He's an ambassador for for Christ. And he what he says is we're making our appeal to you.
>> And what's the appeal? That God has reconciled the world to himself through Christ.
>> So what Paul is saying is that just not him. And that's 2 Corinthians 5:20, I think. But it's not just Paul. It's all Christians in a sense are supposed to be that same way. So the point is that we're to act as representatives of God in this world. And Paul is trying to have churches that are growing in that ability and growing in that. And that's why he always prays for the churches.
There's scholars who've made lists of Paul's prayers for churches. And they're really insightful because he prays for them to grow in knowledge and wisdom and understanding and most of all in love for their for for each other and in love for God. And so God fits into this that the the the church is supposed to be sort of an outpost of God's kingdom in a world that is is is dark and and and in a bad place. So the church is an outpost of what God's kingdom should look like.
That's why Paul corrects Christians when they do crazy things in Corinthians like sue each other or have sex with with their their their their you know father's step stepw step stepwives and stuff like that. He's like how can you be representing God when this is how you're living? So the epistles act partially as a corrective to what first century Christian living and then on into our era should look like. So ultimately Paul's an ambassador of Christ who is God's means by reconcile the world to himself. So we also are ambassadors for reconciliation. Paul says that's what we should be doing.
>> Uh okay. All right Sarah I yield and if we have time for other questions I I have another one but I want to give everybody a chance. Thank you Sarah.
>> No problem. Absolutely. Uh Mr. Balderson, I wanted to kick it over to you if you had any uh questions.
>> Yeah, I got I got a couple of questions.
I'm not a a Christian or anything like that, so I it's not something I have a dog in the fight, but um given a lot of what uh Omar is saying and good debate, gentlemen. Um, a lot of what Omar is saying is the the difference in the message where uh and and I and that's easy enough to find where Paul's message uh surrounds the divinity of Jesus and Jesus's message uh was more along the lines of living in the law. Um do you think that had uh the Aryan the more Aryan um viewpoint had it taken that where uh Jesus did not become this divine figure in that way uh do you think that uh that would uh resolve this problem?
>> Would it resolve which problem? the Aryans >> that that Paul or that uh Omar's having where where it he's separating Paul and part of that is because the difference in the core message >> I with the Aryan interpretation where Jesus is not part of God and it takes away well it says he's divine and uh uh uh he's the first creation but he's not God himself and things like that. Would that fix a lot of what you're saying with Paul?
>> Uh, I don't think so because there's a because the Aryans were not um they were not this the type of lawkeeping uh body that Omar seems to favor and the Aryans did have a view of the new covenant where it essentially supersedes the the old covenant.
>> Right. And then they believe they believe Paul was an apostle, but they they where the the diff where the diversion is is for them the the way that the orthodox had uh been interpreting it was that it gave a divinity to Christ and made him part of God and made the trinity. Whereas uh the aryens he's the first god creation of God but is still separate and subordinate to God.
>> Yeah, it is true. Aryans teach that Jesus is a created being. He He's the first one. Of course, that's true. You know, their famous dictim is there was a time when the son was not. But but but see, since we're talking tonight about Paul, one of his contentions with Paul Omar's was that he says he didn't keep the law or promote the law the way Jesus did. But the Aryans, they they didn't they weren't like the Ebianites who had this heavy emphasis on the Old Testament law in that same way. So, I don't think it would necessarily reconcile it. It would only fix another problem. actually we didn't really debate but we did discuss tonight which is about is Jesus God? Uh but here's what I would contend and that's why I brought up Bart Airman.
Bar Airman who doesn't believe Jesus God. He's an agnostic. He still recognizes John teaches the clear divinity of Jesus. So let's just say we got rid of Paul. We would still have to contend with other multiple clear examples to the deity of Christ such as the Gospel of John. And I would even say Matthew, Mark, you just go down the list. I don't think there's a New Testament book really that's not clear in this manner. Maybe James is is somewhat less clear, but I think even James. So I don't think it would fix it.
Even if we did get rid of Paul and even if we went to Aryens, I think it'd still run into a problem where any version of first century Christianity, it seems like >> Aryans have a completely different interpretation of the way Paul saw Jesus. And that seems to be a lot of the problem.
>> Well, they they would try to interpret Paul uh to their favor. So where it says firstborn, just like Jehovah's Witnesses today, they take firstborn as first created. So they would misuse Colossians one for example to to they they wouldn't my understanding of Aryan. Now each Aryan is different. The problem is we don't have a lot of Aryans writings. We mainly have respons.
>> Well yeah because they were either banned or killed after the first council in Na. Yeah that's not exact.
>> No that's not true. The barbarians remained Aryan and they actually conquered some of the Roman Empire. They were not killed. Uh I'm not saying no >> Aryan. I said I said driven away or killed. It was an >> that's true that's true to an extent but remember even Athanasius himself who was the defender of Nikian orthodoxy against the Aryans he himself was kicked out of the Roman Empire a number of times meaning later on Constantine's ear was was uh the people talking in his ear were Aryans or Aryan sympathizers that's why if you look up expulsion or excise or excommunicated Aanasius you'll see he was kicked out of Rome multiple times because of Aryans did gain influence even within Aanasia's lifetime. I guess I'm just saying I don't think if we adopted an Aryan view, it would still fix all the issues because Aryans didn't reject Paul and Omar rejects Paul. So we still we >> but part of like I said part of this rejection is the the view that the Orthodox have with the with the being part of God. And so because he's part of God, then he Paul is saying that going back to Jesus is the way where Jesus was saying the law is the way. If you took out that entire trope of Jesus being God and then going back to him, then you could go back to what Paul what the actual teachings are. And so I Omar, what do you have to think about that?
>> One last thing though, Benjamin.
>> No, go ahead. I get Go ahead. I >> just last thing. No, no, I just I want Omar to answer. I know. But you said Paul, you said Jesus said that the law is the way. Jesus says in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." So Jesus isn't pointing to the law. He's pointing to himself. He literally says, "I am the way." And Paul does the same thing. So I would just say that it it if we got rid of all of Paul and turned Aryan, we would still have to deal with John's gospel. And it still would be problematic ultimately, I think, for what Omar promotes or it sounds like probably what you would understand as well. But Omar, I don't want to answer on your behalf too much.
>> You're muted.
>> You're muted.
>> Such a good looking Ricky though.
>> I wouldn't say this is some again um saying something that I promote. Like for example, uh I would say that my perspective on the subject would be far more like the Ebianites than it would be your Pauline theology. Right? That doesn't mean that I'm an Ebianite, right? So, if I sit here and I'm pointing to the Hebrew uh the Hebrew scriptures and the five books of Moses, that doesn't mean that I'm going to automatically grant the the the later prophets, right? Doesn't mean I'm carrying Hosea. I'm looking at things in this specific connotation. Um, I would say again, uh, I didn't touch too deeply on because we're kind of moving around, but if you if you look up, uh, Yahweh Katan, okay, which is little Yahweh, which is the concept, you know, it's referring to Enoch, how Enoch became Medatron, right? And so this is like a mystical practice that was very well known in Judaism at that time. And if you if you look in context of the of Yahweh Katan and all the references of of the of this principle um the two powers in heaven concept and you apply that to Paul and it makes sense what Paul's saying. And so Paul's attributing um not extracurricular additional attributes to the prophet and the Messiah being Jesus that were not understood by any Jew of the time of what the Messiah would be in any way whatsoever. So when we come here from today or the today of 1,000 AD or the today of 300 323 to 325 AD in the first Nian council, the first ecumenical council and we're going to look back.
It's all ad hoc. So we can take any time period and I'm a more historical aspect person of this. We go to any time period and take it and read what they're writing at that time. It's all ad hoc applications which you could say is fallacy. I'm not even saying it's a fallacy because everyone's trying to understand something. But it's all just a a chain of events. And the ironic part is that with these these uh cobalistic Jews today or back in the day of Paul are looking up and trying to become one with the with the unformed formless uh and and and through the simum which is a constriction and trying to use things like Enoch and all these other uh to to find the secret to go up into the heavens and convene with God and to sit next to Enoch and where you would say Jesus is and and that opened the for for a lot of things of that now we call trinitarianism and and the Romans by the way anyone who did not subscribe to not just their religions but their um their their social norms were considered barbarians. Everything was barbarian until they were conquered by Rome and then they were considered civilized.
>> Thank you. Um, and then, uh, Cab you brought up, and I'd never heard of this, but the Murritorian fragment and very interesting. Um, what do you have to say about that? Uh, making the apocalypse of PE Peter not canonical. It's something that they argue about. Uh and then the books that they that they are rejecting entirely which is uh kind of an interesting list.
The omissions being Hebrews, James, and the epistles of Peter. What do you make of all that then?
>> Well, it affirms 22 of the 27 books. And you said it rejects the apocalypse of Peter. What What What was that part?
>> It doesn't reject it. It It puts like a giant question mark on it. it it does not it does not canonize it and puts like a giant question mark on it which I think is very interesting. And also one of the arguments that you had with Omar was about uh was to [clears throat] talking about some of the things from the the time period of this and it says in that text it explicitly rejects Gnostic. So that tells me that Gnostic was around at the same time period and they were talking about that and at the same time in uh Marcianite uh writings which the Marcianite is the two gods where Jesus says that the one is a man uh something something >> u well yeah the apocalypse of Peter is noted but it's also noted how people can't read it in church so it' be considered like one the disputed or even rejected parts of the merit fragment.
>> And then of course uh then there's like the shepherd of Hermas is mentioned that it's acceptable for private reading but it it's excluded from being read publicly in church. U there there's a few omissions. Hebrews is not in there.
James is not in there and first second Peter are not in there. It doesn't say that they're excluded or not allowed.
They're just they're just not even listed at all. So, the Murder Myritorian Fragment has 22 of the 27 books. And then, um, >> what do you think of the what do you My question was, what do you think of the books that are not canonized in that and not being in there?
>> Well, there's could be a lot of explanations. So, we don't know when this came. We don't know the exact date of this. Usually, they dated around 180 or something like that. Well, it says that the uh it says that the actual paperwork, the actual uh fragment it was on is from the seventh or 8th century, but that they uh that the consensus dates its original composition to the late 2nd century.
>> Yeah, 70 and 200.
>> That's relatively common. You know, we when when you have a copy of something, you're saying when did it come from? So you're right that the paper seventh or 8th century but yeah it's from about 180 >> uh just that it's this is an organic process of Christians working through this. So the merritorian fragment is not exhaustive or complete as we could tell by this. We do know that depending on where you were at geographically in the early church. Some books were slower to make it their way to you. Some books were more copied in the eastern provinces. Some books were more copied in the western provinces. And so sometimes there was even that because now we could have a document and I could literally email you a PDF and you would instantly have it or airdrop it. Back then there was a process of copying it to for geographical distribution. So part of it is just we don't know what everyone had when and we don't know what the particular author of this what they had or didn't have. So it seems like they they may have been unaware of the books because they're not rejecting them, right? But they're not mentioning them either. So they may have been unaware of the books. And that makes sense. Like Justin Martyr, he's 150 AD.
If you read Justin Martyr, it's not entirely I think you can make a plausible argument Justin Martyr was unaware of Paul's writings. He never directly quotes Paul. There's one or two places maybe he alludes to Paul, but that's an interesting thing where you have a guy that early in the church who's in uh I think he's from Samaria, Justin Martyr, even though he ended up in Rome, and yet he doesn't really seem to be familiar with Paul's writings. So it's it's a different situation then where you may not be familiar with everything simply because of geographical distribution and physical physical logistics. So I mean >> that he may not be aware of it or he may not regard them as scripture and it may just be letters to him too.
>> It seems like it seems like Peter would be an odd one to leave out since he's the the the rock that Jesus built.
>> No, he said Paul. He said no. Cap said Paul, but Peter, it's the two, it's the two epistles of Peter that are left.
>> He's talking about the fragment. You're talking about >> Okay. Okay. Got it. Got it.
>> Talking about two different things.
>> Yes. So, so on the first thing, so that would be a classic argument from silence because Justin Martyr was not afraid to say what he disagreed with, especially in his dialogue with Trifo. So, who's Justin Martyr talking with in that situation? He's talking to a a Jew who says, "You guys are inventing stuff.
You're doing crazy stuff. Uh, this is a different religion. this ain't what are you trying to why are you trying to build upon the backs of our prophets?
Now, they had a whole dialogue. Justin Martyr never says, "Well, there's this Paul guy, but we reject him." He doesn't bring him up. It seems like he's unaware of him. It'd be an argument from because because he could have said to to trifle the Jew, "Well, you're right. There's this guy Paul who hijacks stuff and we don't agree with him." But he never there's no argument like that. And it's a rather long discussion and Justin Justin gives his thoughts on all kinds of issues with Trifor the Jew. That's one thing. So, I would say you you'd have to that would be a very strong argument. As far as second Peter being left out, uh, we have to we don't know what the what the Miratorian fragments authors, we don't know what they're familiar with. So, if they said we we see it and we reject it, that would be one thing. But if it's just not even mentioned at all, then then we have to say they're not aware of it, it would seem. Now, here's what one thing to mention on that. He does mention Mark, and Mark is historically understood to be essentially Peter's gospel. Mark is essentially the secretary who writes Peter's perspective. And if you notice, the gospel of Mark starts and ends with Peter. Early tradition uh mentions that Peter is the one sort of behind Mark's gospel. So Peter is, I would say, still in the mix from the Murritorian fragment, but he may not be familiar with his epistles.
>> Well, what do you think about the change made the changes made in the Mark uh uh story then? where the original Mark story and the resurrection something you and uh Omar were arguing about where they don't ever see a resurrected Jesus.
They go in, they find a they find a young boy who tells them that Jesus is written and then they get scared and run away and the the other parts were not added until later.
>> You're talking about the longer ending of Mark, right? At the end of Mark 16.
>> Yeah, I'm talking about the original ending of Mark.
>> You're talking about So you're talking about the longer ending versus the shorter ending. Okay. Yeah. So, that's Mark 16. Um, I would disagree that there that the resurrection's not there, though, because if you go to Mark 16, >> well, he says Jesus is written. What I what I'm what I'm talking about is they never saw him because Omar was making a case of he wasn't even seen. Well, in that in that nobody's even seen him.
Just some kid says he was right in his prison and he doesn't.
>> What I was talking about is that the the attestation that 500 or over 500 people saw the resurrection. came from Paul >> and the only person who wrote that was Paul and and Paul wrote that like 30 years after Jesus died and no one else ever wrote that but then it somehow that's gospel so that that was my >> reference well and according according to the shortened Mark nobody saw the risen Jesus maybe that kid that said Jesus is risen maybe that he >> but I wasn't even going but I I wasn't even going there because I understand from the from >> Well I am though it's my question >> yeah yeah yeah no No, I'm saying >> I'm I'm [ __ ] ripping off your question. Let me have mine.
>> Yeah, I a I'm good. Go ahead. Continue.
Sir, >> you guys are each answering the wrong side. He spent like 10 minutes answering a question for you and now you're all answering the question for him. It's cracking me up.
>> Yeah. No, I was just bringing up because he never touched on when I said that. He didn't I said the only person said that was Paul and he was just talking about Mary saw it and all this other stuff, but that's not what Paul said.
>> A few things. So, uh, it seems that the epistles, they're written prior to the gospels under most understandings, right? So, that means you already have early witness to people witnessing the resurrection.
You know what I mean? Because you have Paul mentioning it in Corinthians, but in other places as well. So, you already have early eyewitness recollections of the risen Jesus, even in the epistles themselves. But Mark still has number one prophecies of the resurrection. It's predicted in the book of Mark and the angel tells him he's risen.
>> So that's how the little kid the little kid does it.
>> Yeah.
>> The only thing they find in the cave doesn't say little kid. It says young >> is a young man. Well, young man little kid with whatever.
>> A young man would be someone who's like in their 20s >> adolescent under Jewish reckoning. No, it is a difference. A little kid would be someone under 12 and a young man would be someone over 13 in Jewish reckoning.
So it doesn't make a difference.
>> Okay. This this young man is the only person that that may have witnessed it.
He doesn't say he witnessed it. He says Jesus is ris risen and they run away in fear. So nobody else saw it in that case. So what and then that's my question because you just brought up Mark and Mark being left out in some case. So what do you take on that then?
Well, I just mentioned there's earlier recollections of the witness of Jesus because we have the epistles and the letters. They're they're prior to the gospels composition, it appears.
>> Yeah, but that's Paul. That's exactly what my argument was. And you're saying Paul confirms Paul and I'm saying Paul is the only person he wasn't there.
>> It's not.
>> You're using Paul to prove Paul. And my argument was Paul didn't see it.
>> His question is actually not really about Paul. First of all, that's not what he's >> It's about the resurrection. And I'm saying >> it is about the resurrection on Paul.
>> Okay. But I'm just saying and also James is rather early as well. James is is the brother of of Jesus. But I'm not I'm not sure what you guys are saying. Like this is the argument is not very significant because >> I'm not trying to make some great argument. I don't have a dog in the fight, bro. I I I'm an Odinist. I I don't really care about this is like comic book stuff.
>> Odinism was defeated.
>> I'm just asking you question. I'm just asking you good questions and trying to find interesting things. I don't got a I don't got a dog.
>> I got you. Odinism was defeated by Christianity a long time ago. But oh my >> not according to this panel because you notice that you notice that we're still here. You might notice that and uh we have no civilizational influence >> and there's new hoffs opening up and Iceland became Odinist again.
>> You have no civilization.
>> That's like the Jews saying there's no too good of a job.
>> That's like the Jews saying where's Rome? There's no that's okay. Odin's like that. He likes to get rid of the weak ones. My point with first Corinthians 15, Omar, is that >> yes, >> that you're not recognizing, we didn't get get into this because it didn't have to do with Paul's apostilhip. That fragment of 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection appearances is preauline.
So there it's very difficult to find a scholar who does not understand that that 1 Corinthians 15 3-5 fragment, it's a pre-auline creed that goes back to the 30s and it goes back to Aramaic Christian community. So if someone's like, "What are you talking about?" Just type in pre-pauline fragment first Corinthians. You'll find that it's a creed that existed prior to Paul. So Omar, you keep on putting on Paul, but you don't understand that res that list of people who saw that is prior to Paul. That's why it has a rhythm to it. It says first he appeared, then he appeared according to the scriptures, then he appeared, and then he adds himself in the 500 at the end.
But the other parts prior to that, those are pre-auline. That's a pre-pauline credle fragment. So, it's prior to Paul.
That's why he says it I it was handed down and I received it. That's part of the reason he's acknowledging it comes from some other place.
>> Okay. When I brought up you told me where are inconsistencies, etc., etc. No, sorry, not inconsistencies. When you said, uh, what is something that Paul said it's not true? I'm saying the resurrected Christ with 500 or I'm sorry, over 500 people seeing it. The only place in the New Testament that says that is Paul. And that was written what 40 years after Jesus had all died around 60 something. Yeah.
>> Okay. So how how can you explain to me or anyone who's using just basic logic and math >> that I'm supposed to attest that it in fact over 500 people saw the resurrected Christ because Paul wrote it down and who wasn't there but wrote it down 60 AD after. How is that?
>> It's funny. It's funny that you think Paul's unreliable, but you think you're reliable. Paul was a first century Jew.
You're this guy in the 21st century. Why are >> Neither of us were there? Neither of us were there. That's my point. You weren't there either. So, you're telling me to listen to you because Paul said it. I'm saying none of us were there.
>> No, the witnesses. Now, what does Paul say about those witnesses? He says, "Some of whom are still alive." Why does he say that, Omar?
>> Hey, Paul also said that none of us will will die before seeing the end of days.
happen.
>> He does not say that.
>> Okay.
>> I have slides for that. I have slides for that because I I knew something.
>> Next time we do a debate, I'm going to bring some slides, too. There's going to be a lot more [laughter] >> I'm going up the top of my [ __ ] dome.
You got slides. I'm playing.
>> You brought slides. You slid.
>> No, no, no, no.
The man came prepared. Omar, holy [ __ ] >> I am I am joking. I I'm joking. Clear your glasses. the whole debate trying to look >> smart. I left my [laughter] glasses with my computer. That's the [ __ ] problem here. Cab Cab's here with books. Look, I'm with a book right now pretending something.
>> It's a [laughter] Bible. We're talking about the Bible. But I can go to First Thessalonians if you would like because I know the passage you're talking about.
It doesn't say what you said, but back to 1 Corinthians 15. I don't understand why.
>> Say the last part again.
>> We could go to First Thessalonians 4 because that's a passage you're saying is a false prophecy. It doesn't say what you said it said. Number one. Number two, we don't have a good reason to doubt 1 Corinthians 15 just because you say we should doubt it. You're saying why should we believe it? The reason we should believe it is because Paul says you could check the eyewitnesses. Number one, and even skeptical scholars recognize that the beginning part of that passage 3 through5 is pre- Pauline, meaning it dates to the early 30s, meaning the eyewitness attestation you're talking about to Cphus and to James.
>> Keep in mind, you look a lot more intelligent.
>> It's pre Pauline.
>> Okay. So, but that's not where, Hold on, hold on. Where did something mean it didn't happen?
>> No. Where did someone before Where did Hold on. Prep Pauline. Where? Please, for the love of God, show me >> where anyone anyone said five over 500 people witnessed it other than Paul.
>> That part of that part of the So, the 1 Corinthians 15, notice I said 3 through five several times. 3 through five.
Those verses are not the part that include the 500. the beginning of the creed. That was the beginning of the cre but he says about the 500 some of whom are still alive and when I asked you why none of which we have testimony of none of which you could you could still talk to them cuz they were there you weren't >> Clement Polycarp no one ever wrote anything about 500. You know why?
Because no one ever read it other than from Paul. No one said it. Ignatius. No one. I did I did a lot of research on this. Nobody except Paul said it. But you what does that mean?
>> That means it that means that we don't have any proof of what Paul claims to be true.
>> That's it.
>> There is a time there is a time in Matthew where it says the disciples met Jesus at Gile.
>> I'm not saying he didn't resurrect at some point.
>> No, I'm saying that could have been the time that happened.
>> I'm not listen I'm I'm I'm trying to look for a person who's not who is not a trinitarian who does not believe in any human god. I'm granting a lot of stuff here, but I will not bend logic or reason. It's not going to happen. I'm simply saying >> all your early church fathers, all of them, uh Justin Martyr, nobody anywhere, they talk about resurrection. I agree, but there is no mention of this over 500 people, only Paul.
You do you concur or you disagree with me?
>> If you're saying the only person who wrote that in the first century, yeah, but that doesn't mean you But you're appealing the logic. Watch the logic. Only Paul mentions the 500 witnesses to Jesus resurrection. No one else mentioned 500 witnesses Jesus resurrection. Therefore, Paul is lying.
Therefore, it didn't happen. Which that's not that's not a syllogism.
>> It doesn't follow.
>> All it follows is no one else attested to it.
>> Okay, here's the syllogism. Okay, so one so the a claim that f over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ at the same time. No one ever wrote it except for Paul and Paul happened to not be therefore it's true. Is that a is that what we your argument? [laughter] >> No.
>> No. So that's I I don't understand how that would be a different argument to that.
>> By the way, everyone was so crazy that even Araneaeus and Clement and Ignatius knew this is a little far because only Paul said it so they left it out.
>> That That's Now you're Now you're stretching. Now you're stretching.
That's >> maybe a little bit. I am stretching a little bit but you know >> let's move on. I know machine li has a question for cab and I know cab has a limited time so I do want to get through that one first and I know Mario was going for shaman earlier so uh machine [clears throat] lies if you'd like to ask your question or make your comment please.
Uh sure. Thank you for having me. And um and yeah um I'd like to ask um in terms of um um you know Paul right um if he's established right as an apostle right what um you know I'd like to ask what establishes him as an apostle and is apostle the same thing as disciple right because disciple and um an apostle um I mean there seems to be a discrepancy between those two terms and then also there seems to be an idea be aware you know um you know in Acts right they chose um you know a disciple right to be among them and they chose Matias right it wasn't Paul that was chosen right Paul is chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles so in that specific role he still follows the uh Jewish law he doesn't think that um you know Christ's um you know salvation abstains him um from sort of following this sort of Jewish uh law So um he's sort of in a sense um you know still um as he says he's um a circumcised and a Jew right so on what authority does he challenge the other apostles right because um you know you were kind of saying that you know it seems that um you know Paul is uh given um you know you know that what he's doing as apostle to the Gentiles is condoned by the other apostles but he outright challenges the other apostles, right? He calls them super apostles, right? And >> that's that's not that's not Peter and them. Those are charlatans who come later in second Corinthians. Everything else he said, I'm listening. But that that's just he's not calling Peter. He's not mocking them calling them super apostles. Those are that's a different group of people.
>> Well, he specifically mentions uh James and um um I mean he's saying that the other apostles um you know that they take wives along with them. So he is uh challenging them. He's saying that they are doing things.
>> No, no, no, no. He's saying that he could also have a wife along with him if he wanted. He was given the example of others who had a wife along with them.
He's saying you can have a traveling wife, a traveling believing wife with you. He's saying it's a liberty he didn't take, but he's not saying they shouldn't. He's saying they did this.
It's allowable. I'm not doing it, but it's something you can do.
>> So, >> he never criticizes James.
>> Well, I think he he does criticize James. He um um he says that they um um that he's weak for being a vegetarian and all this type of stuff.
>> He he never says James is weak. First of all, James is not a vegetarian and that Paul never says he's weak for being >> um Hegodipus the historian. He actually does um I mean it'll say that James is a vegetarian but u you know so there are historical resources that claim that James is a vegetarian but u but um >> he doesn't bring up in his discussion of of eating meat Paul >> well are you aware of >> yeah he's a Jewish historian writing in the 130s >> yeah so on what authority does Paul challenge the um um the other apostles see if he's if he's given authority by them, right? See, um, >> he's not given authority by him. That's your mistake, though. His authority is not derivative from them. They affirm his calling, but his authority comes from Christ. But I could give you the authority he has. In Galatians chapter 2, he says, "Because Peter's conduct was out of line with the gospel." Peter was showing partiality against the gentile believers when certain people came from Jerusalem. So Paul is appealing to a sto a standard that's above all of them.
Because remember in Galatians 1, Paul says, "Even if I teach another gospel, I should be accursed." Right? Paul has a standard above >> higher standard. That's the whole entire question, right? So >> the gospel of Jesus Christ, >> but uh given uh to all of the disciples or just him?
>> No, every every it wouldn't make sense to challenge Peter if he was not also under the same standard. And that's why the Jerusalem Council shows they're all under the same standard. Now, Galatians happened before. Well, well, look, well, look here in Galatians, he challenges them. He says, "And when James and Cphus and John, who seemed to who seemed to be pillars, now he's calling them out, right?" And he says, "Perceive the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me that we should go to the Gentiles and they should go to the circumcised. Only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing um I was eager to do." But when Cphus came to Antioch, and this is the key part, he says, "I opposed him to his face."
>> He said, "I opposed him to his face."
>> Verse 14. Can you read verse 14?
>> So you're saying he never challenged them, but he is. No, no, I did not say he never challenged him. I was saying that what you said was incorrect about how he criticized James for being a vegetarian or having a wife. But could you read verse 14? What's Paul's >> earlier in the debate? Earlier in the debate, you you said uh uh >> verse 14. What's verse 14 say?
>> Well, well, well, I'm getting to that.
Um, he says, um, um, he says, um, you know, when Cphus came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.
>> Uh, for before certain men came from James, he was eating with Gentiles. But when they came and drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party, >> now he calls them the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritical along with him. So now he admits that a bunch of people along with Barnabas didn't go along with what he was doing. So that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. And then he says um and he says um to um now this is the key part. I agree this is the main part. He says if you though a Jew live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? It's Paul himself that's creating two sets of books. He is creating a a a form um you know where you could be under um you know Christ salvation and not be under the law yet also be a Jew and live under Christ and follow the law. And so he's setting up two roads of salvation. He accuses Peter of doing the same thing that he's doing in my opinion. But >> confession is through projections.
>> Um and I don't mean to um be offensive to Christians. I I um I I think it's a totally rational teaching and I think that um you know um um >> you know that a a machine you know the story of how they say like the lost and they say that Jesus in India you know the story they say like the lost one of the stories the lost uh the lost years of Jesus was that he was in India and becoming a guru. If that case then you would be the embodiment of that one. So right.
>> So uh Paul points to Jesus as the only way of salvation though. So he's not creating two ways of salvation. You know you mentioned that he was creating two ways of salvation but he constantly says I I came to he says when he came to Corenth he swore that he would preach nothing but Christ crucified. Now why would why would that be his only mission his main focus to preach Christ crucified? Because he says there is no other way. That is the that is the one way. And Peter of course agrees with that in Acts 4:12. He says there's no other name given under heaven by which men may be saved. So Paul's message is to preach Christ crucified. Not circumcision, not even baptism. That's not even his first priority. It's Christ crucified. So there's one way. And that's why he says in Galatians 3:28, there's neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for all are one in Christ. So he's not creating two separate paths for Jew and Gentile.
There's only one way and it is in Christ. But vocab in Matthew 19 when when ask when they ask him how do you go how do you gain eternal life go to heaven he says you would only enter uh the eternal life if you keep the commandments >> and then what's he say after that to the man when the before the man goes away sad >> tell me I that's not my point I'm I brought up >> that's that is the point of the story though he says one thing you lack sell your possessions to the poor and follow me where in the Old Testament does it say you have >> follow him Right? Where does the Old Testament command you to follow Jesus?
>> Jesus is following the as the Messiah is supposed to following the commandments in the Torah.
>> He says, "Follow me." He doesn't say, "Follow me."
>> He's leading towards the Torah. He's going >> You're inserting that. You're inserting that. Show me where he preached against the Torah.
>> He says, "Follow me." No, Jesus isn't going to preach against Torah. That's not the point. You're missing.
>> Exactly.
>> He's saying he's the fulfillment of Torah. Then my point is he's surpassing Torah because he doesn't say, "Follow Torah." He says, "Follow me." that the point is there's no Old Testament command to follow Jesus, is there? So why would he command the man to follow him?
>> No. Okay, you're right. As far when you say Old Testament, as far as the Torah, there is nothing about Messiah in there at all whatsoever.
Messiah, but if you're talking about Tanakh, yes, there's Messiah in there.
Uh, but that doesn't say follow Messiah and you get to go to heaven. It says it says follow the follow the commandments in the law of books of Moses, right? But by the way, just on one side note, when you're talking about Paul and the 500 and so on, according to Paul's own words in 2 Corinthian 13:1, he says, "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." So Paul tells you, "Disregard what someone says as a as a testimony unless it was attributed by two or three witnesses, which is, by the way, from the Torah."
So Paul writes all this stuff and has no witnesses. So according to Paul's own guide, we should disregard anything he said that doesn't have two or three witnesses, including his own vision.
>> Uh that does have two or three witnesses because it has Luke.
>> No, because that three it's like you're making these criticism without actually have reading read the sources. Luke is a source. Paul is a source. Ananas is a source. That's three right there. What are you talking about?
>> What? Hold on. A source of what?
>> You said a source of his vision.
>> Yeah.
through that. There's three different testimonies. Hold on. So, if we were in a court, >> Luke also attests to it because he's writing what happened.
>> Yeah. One guy saw but didn't hear. One guy heard but didn't see. All written by the same guy.
>> That's moving the goalpost. You're saying there was no other. But see, Ananas, >> I think we may be missing each other. I was talking about that his vision on the road to Damascus. That's what I was talking.
>> Okay. What happened with Ananas?
>> Tell me.
How can you make a criticism of the story without noting the Ananas component? He's fundamental to the vision.
>> You you said specifically that other people saw it and I said no one on earth ever said that over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ other than Paul came back. No. And I'm saying that Paul told everyone including you that in every matter, not some, every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. So you're now arguing Paul against Paul.
>> No, you just brought up the vision. So we're back to that because that actually more relates to the topic. So here's here's what it says in Acts 9. Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananas.
The Lord said to him in a vision, Ananas. And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight." By the way, that's still in Damascus to this day. And at the house of Judas, look for a man of Tarsus named Saul. For behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananas come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight. But Ananas answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil we has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priest to bind all who call on your name." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before." So it goes down the list. So Ananas is also a witness to this fact.
Plus Luke, the author. So you're it's not just Paul and then the pillars as just mentioned the pillars affirm the grace given to Paul.
>> This is what you do. You just you just used Luke who also wasn't there and his specific writings quote him about what Paul said happened with Ananas. Again none of them were there. It's all hearsay. Hearsay written by another guy here written by another guy. He hearsay.
That does not prove your point. just because you are it was written by one other guy.
>> That's actually not Luke's methodology at all. Luke tells you his methodology.
And here's what he says. Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered from to us, it seemed good to me also having followed all things closely for some time past to write an orderly account. That's his methodology. So what you just said is not his methodology.
Stop slandering.
>> Correct. So in first Corinthians when Paul says at least two to three witnesses, those two to three witnesses you're mentioning right now weren't there either.
>> Ananas heard from the Lord.
>> Oh, sure. Who said that? Luke. Luke said that Ananas heard from the Lord. That's brother. This No offense, Cap. This is my thing. You listen, you and I have a difference of opinion of of of the concrete reality on the ground, right?
And the difference is is that I'm not calling you I'm not using derogatory terms for you uh for your beliefs. But it seems to me that you feel righteous enough to kind of point out that I'm missing something. No, I'm not missing anything. If I write something and tell you that Clay saw a vision of Muhammad in the sky in northern Florida and you don't hear it from Clay, you cannot I can't tell you you're crazy for not believing me. You understand my thought process?
>> Yes, we already were through that when you brought up Muhammad in the beginning and I already I already eviscerated that that >> that was in context. No, that >> that was in the very beginning of the conversation.
>> Context of Paul about divine revelations and prophets. I'm specifically making a statement that if I tell you cab, you'll never guess what happened. You tell me what happened. Omar, I say Clay, remember Clay from the panel? He's in northern Florida, I think, and he just told me that he saw he was in a cave and he saw Muhammad appear in the middle of the sky. You go, "Oh my god, what did you do?" And I said, "I don't know. I wasn't there, but someone else told me."
I'm saying that's where I'm grounding my logic.
>> With all that I in your brain, you just might have seen that. [laughter] >> I record I break today. I'm break today.
I've seen it again. You know what though? You know what? Actually, let me touch on that. You may be right because the interesting part about uh working with Iawaska as an Iawaska for like 25% of my life and drinking Iawaska all around the world and serving to over 15,000 people around the world for healing and their own spiritual whatever necessary reasons is that I actually in fact have spent significant time healing from spinal surgeries in the lands in the in the Wadim Musa, the valley of Moses. I've spent three days and nights drinking iawask in caves in the valley of Moses with six different bushes that I could light on fire when the when I watched the rays of and I've explored these holy lands and I've seen all sorts of phenomenal very powerful things. You know what that did cab?
>> No, that's why I don't preach it my brother. That's my point. I've seen in the No, listen. I've seen when the sun's rising. I've seen in the rays of the sun, Hebrew letters forming in the rays of the sun over the promised lands. I've seen it with my own eyes. Now, does that mean that I affirm everything in the New or Old Testament? No. But what it does make me is a humble seeker. And so, all I'm saying is that I am a seeker. And you make your face with the humble part.
I did it. By the way, if I was trying to get real, I'd say, "Hey, you know what?
Paul most likely, guess what? Most likely gay." Okay? because telling >> he's telling everyone no girls, no girls, guys, only the Lord in your heart, bending on the knee, you know.
So, I'm not trying to get like that, but >> like you've been reading some John Shelby Spong, >> brother. I don't know who Listen, I'm with all reality, I'm dyslexic, so I don't re I don't know who we're talking about and I, you know, I I want to hear your opinion. That's why I didn't bring some jabron on here to talk about Paul.
I reached out to you because I do respect your uh you you know your path and I respect your you know you're a learned you're you have a what PhD or masters in right masters I never finished >> oh just a masters okay that's >> no I'm just saying I never got to finish my doctorate stuff it just >> okay but again I don't have a m I have a masters in Iawaska okay so if you ever want to find out about Paul revelations similar to Paul I can help you arrange that and we'll together with our odinous friend we will go to the Wadi Musa of Valley of Moses and the Wadi Rum Valley of high places of L and we'll go on a spiritual journey together where you will see your own revelation. But the difference is >> sounds like a setup for a punch line. A shaman, a Christian, and an odinist walking to the walking to the desert.
>> It'll be amazing. But the difference is is that you as I would have a vision. We wouldn't think that's the vision. So we would The difference is I don't go and preach to the world that my visions and opinions is the right one. I'm simply asking questions, right? Because my actual belief is significantly different um than than anything that's contained in any of those Abrahamic books. But I am a seeker.
>> All right, let me kick it over to Mario.
Uh let's see if your um your mic is coming in better. If not, I'll just have to boot you back out.
>> Do you hold Hold on. Do you like legit you have to have something on in the background or something >> like Yeah.
>> Tell the her tell the shaman he's a heretic that he should be burnt.
>> Absolutely not. I can't I can't. It hurts my ears. Okay, let me bring Echo up. Echo, thanks for waiting backstage.
I know your Wi-Fi kicks you out often.
>> Did you have a question for Cab or Shaman?
>> Um, well, more of a actual statement actually. Um, sorry, caught me off guard. I wasn't expecting come on right this second. Um, okay. The uh crucifixion of Christ was meant for what purpose?
The atonement of all sins, right?
According depends on who you ask, right? I would say the crucifixion of Christ crucifixion was capital punishment in the time of the second civil period of Rome and the the the capital offense was calling himself the king of the Jews which is the messiah and that's why he was crucified like objectively speaking but the theologian in the religious >> yeah so I mean I can answer but cap can as well cab feel >> yeah sub I hold the substitutionary atonement >> okay so he died for >> he died for for the sin of of of Adam and Eve, right? The first sin.
>> Yeah. It it says that in Romans 4 um um almost exclusively just in Romans 4.
It's it's nowhere in the Gospels um you know that um you know that Christ is uh there um that um you know he's there to I mean make up for the sins of Adam, right? Um that he's the second Adam.
These are basically things made up by Paul, I think. Well, could you go to John 129 >> and let's [snorts] let this just be between Echo Cab and Shaman. The the chat did not pay for their gauntlet. So, unfortunately, all of you don't get to play it once. Uh so, unless they want to unfuck themselves with a very hefty two red donos to fix it, uh we will only be going one at a time and then we'll end.
But yeah, back to you, Echo, Cab, and Shaman. Like echo in John 1:29, John the Baptist sees Jesus and he says the next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
>> Okay. So he he was he was the purpose is to take away the sin of the world. So for forgiveness of all all all mankind.
Okay. So sorry.
Now, if you forgive somebody, would you still punish them?
>> If I forgive them, >> if you like if your kid did something, >> if I was a civil magistrate, if I was a civil magistrate, I would still have to enact punishment. It depends on who you're talking about.
>> Well, if your kid did something wrong and you forgave your kid and they you've already punished them and you forgave them, would >> I've already punished them.
>> Would you would you would like you've already scalded them. You've already told them what was wrong. Would you continue to hold a grudge against them?
Would you would you >> hold a grudge against >> continue after you forgive them to punish them?
>> No, I would not hold a grudge against them. No.
>> No, you wouldn't punish them. You wouldn't continue to punish them after you forgave them, right?
>> Well, depends what you mean. If if if uh I had to remove somebody out of like I had a family member who had you know my my cousin was a heroin addict and they had to remove him from the house because he would steal all the stuff and stuff like that. Uh they forgave him but they couldn't let him live there anymore. It just it just depends, you know. I mean each example is different but I'm I'm I'm listening. I think I know where you're going. Go ahead.
>> Okay. So um what was the punishment for Adam and Eve >> for their for sin? They were exiled from the garden >> and the >> exis from the garden >> and they would have a mortal end >> and she would and and she would have pain in childbirth and he would have to toil for his food.
>> Correct.
Women still have pain in their Jesus is gone. Sins are forgiven. Women are still in pain when they have child birth.
We're still working our ass off trying to feed ourselves.
>> What did Jesus?
>> It's not over. Revelation is the end.
>> Jesus.
>> No. No.
>> You've been forgiven already. Jesus died for all of our sins. Jesus died for all of our sins. We're all forgiven through Jesus.
>> Why do women still hurt when they have child birth? Why do we still have to work our butts off to feed ourselves?
If God has forgiven us through the sacrifice of Jesus, >> yeah, we're not at the end yet. So, that's what Revelation is about. That's when that happens. The kingdom of God has not been finalized.
Even Jesus spoke in Matthew 24 of his return. So the this finalization doesn't happen until the return. That's the end of the book of Revelation. That's when Jesus comes back, sets everything right.
That's when there's no more pain, no more sin, no more suffering, none of that. Now, if you don't have a Christian worldview, you actually don't even have that promise. You know, for example, if you're an atheist, there's no promise that there will be a a pristine state.
There's no hope for that. you know, if if uh these all these different versions of worldviews, they don't have that kind of promise. Christianity is the only one who has a God who sets everything right in a way that is holy and pure and perfect. But are you saying because women still have pain and childbirth, therefore Jesus didn't accomplish anything? Is that is that your ultimate argument?
>> Um, basically you could you could you could take that from that. in in regarding to anybody else not having uh a road or highway whatever you said uh pathway we're all on there's no different pathway for anybody else you if Jesus doesn't accomplish anything by being sacrificed for the sins of mankind and everybody's forgiven if we're forgiven why are we why are we still being punished and if we're still being punished then we're not forgiven >> well you saying your sins have been forgiven >> according to Jesus.
>> Well, if you've never if you've never repented, your sins aren't forgiven. You still be judged to Yeah. Ultimately, yes, you'd be judged. Yes. Ultimately, you'd be judged and then you would have to go through the your your punishment, not Jesus dying for our sins.
>> Well, do you believe that it's possible Jesus could come back and then that would be >> No, not to die again. to set up his permanent kingdom. That's what he promised.
>> That's what Paul promised.
>> No. In first and not No, no, no, no. In in Luke, Jesus says, "I'm not going to eat this." When Luke says something, that's Paul.
>> Luke says something. That's Paul.
>> Okay. Okay. So, I see what we're doing.
So, in Revelation, does not John talk about the perfect state? That's the final state.
That doesn't change the fact that it's said earlier that Jesus is there to forgive our sins. He died for he was crucified for our forgiveness.
Yes. But Jesus also punishes sin.
>> Echo, do you believe in the concept? Do you believe in the concept of sin as a metaphysical reality?
>> What is it? What do you mean by that?
>> I believe that you can do things wrong.
Pardon me.
>> Okay. Wrong. According to what standard though?
>> The moral standard of your society.
>> Okay.
>> Black slavery is acceptable in the 1830s, right?
>> Yeah, it was.
>> Okay. So, would it be wrong to help a slave escape or wrong to or would it be wrong to uh help a sl which one's wrong?
to hold a slave or to help a slave escape.
>> I'm not in that time. So, I wouldn't actually have a uh um a moral standing on that because I wasn't there. My moral standing on that is I wouldn't have a slave and I would help the slave escape.
>> Okay. But if if if the morality of something is just based upon the society, then society changes, right?
>> So, child sacrifice was a part of certain cultures. All kinds of things are in the Bible that that uh are are written down as scripture that we shouldn't do that we know is morally incorrect.
>> Well, yeah. The Bible talks about all kinds of wicked things happening. But I'm saying I'm saying >> it the point why we bringing that up is if you don't believe the concept of sin is real because sin is an infraction against a holy God.
>> So you're really asking a hypothetical because you don't think sin is real is the problem. the word sin is only referencing to God, then yeah, you're correct. If the word sin is only referencing to God, then yeah, I can I can say you're correct. But the word sin, >> I guess I wouldn't use the word sin. I would use the saying is morally incorrect. Something is morally incorrect. It's morally incorrect. You don't need to have a god to call it a sin.
>> Okay. So, the the way the reason the Bible describes the state of the world that it's in is in because of the fallen the fallen nature of it because it fell into decay because of sin. What's your explanation for why the world is messed up?
>> Because people are are messed up. If you want to use a a a Bible reference, because God placed the tree of good, tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Because God created evil right in the first chapter. Right in the second chapter, he created the book of good and the the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
>> Yeah. But you don't think that happened.
I'm saying I'm saying you I know but you don't think that happened. I'm saying you why do you think the world is is in a state that's not ideal? What's your explanation?
>> Because people are [ __ ] or people we can we can actually just say because they want to follow doctrines that are fake. They want to try follow doctrines that lead them astray.
>> Okay. So would you would you say that you're an [ __ ] >> I could say I'm an [ __ ] I've always said I'm an [ __ ] my whole life. I'm an [ __ ] but I'm an honest [ __ ] >> So, what doctrine do you follow? That's the problem for you.
>> But I don't actually I you know what I I've I've >> That was dope.
>> I was raised as a as a Nazarene Christian. Um I found Islam when I was in my 20s. Um I left from there because all of the religions all lead to the same place. And if you want to believe in God, you believe in God in your heart and you worship him in your heart and you will have your day of judgment.
That's all we should be worried about is our day of judgment.
>> Who's doing the judging though, Tom?
>> Well, that would be God, not Jesus.
>> That would be God. That would be the higher power.
>> So, you do believe there's a God who would judge sin.
I believe there if there if there is a God, I believe there there would be a God that would judge us. If if there's any factuality to any of these books, um you have to go back to the beginning of the book, right? And and focus on the words of the God that we're talking about. So in the Bible or the Hebrew Bible or the Holy Bible, whatever you want to call it, when God speaks, God sets a direction. Then we have this whole bunch of new doctrines in the New Testament which is basically like uh like um the other gentleman was saying is Paul Paul set this out. Paul the the the books that are referencing okay G who's James James is Jesus's brother James doesn't talk about the birth and the resurrection in the book of James he he doesn't talk about the birth the immaculate birth and the resurrection of Jesus and he's his brother and he's the leader of the church and he followed Jewish rules.
>> Okay. So, you believe that there's rules we should follow that God lays down?
>> Yeah, I believe. Yeah, I I do. I do.
>> How do you know what those rules are?
>> Not from Paul. You read the Old Testament and and uh >> the Old Testament.
>> Yeah, the Old Testament.
>> So, do you practice Judaism?
>> Pardon me.
>> Do you practice Judaism?
No, I don't actually uh assign myself to any religious um factor >> about the code of Hamarabi. It's there too.
>> But then you don't Well, the code of Hamarami doesn't have a day of atonement.
>> No, but it has the it has the laws and code of ethics that you were describing.
You never mentioned day of atonement.
>> Yeah. And what I'm saying at the Old Testament law >> you asked him what moral laws and code of ethics he follows. I say you could follow the code of hemorra and would be almost identical to the commandments of the Torah without being >> Hold on. Hold on. The day of atonement is is fundamental to it because it's the way that sin is dealt with by animal sacrifice.
>> Yes. But that that's only one section that's one little part of the collective law [clears throat] that we're describing we're talking about.
>> But I mean if you don't follow the reason I bring up Yam Kapoor David to it's the big one. So if you don't follow that, it's in Leviticus 16. You're not really following Old Testament stipulations then. Right.
>> Well, there there's 613 mitzvotes.
Picking one specific thing doesn't mean so that No, I would disagree. I would say I would say you would be stoned to death according to Moses's law. Sure.
But you'd [clears throat] be stoned to death for all sorts of stuff. If a if a son curses the father, he gets stoned to death, too, right?
uh in certain instances. Now you brought up Hemarabi. You said you could basically follow that. It would be the same thing. But do you know in the code of Hammurabi that men were generally permitted to have extrammarital relationships with their maidervants or slaves?
>> Do you know that in the Torah you can have multiple wives?
>> But that's different than maidervants or slaves, right?
>> I mean concubines.
>> Yeah. Concubines.
>> It's all Yeah. In the Tanakh there's a lot of >> Well, Deuteronomy tells tells Israel.
But what does Deuteronomy say about multiplying wives? Are the kings allowed to do that or not?
>> Uh in Deuteronomy, >> yeah, Deuteronomy says the kings are not supposed to multiply wives unto themselves like paying kings do. So they violated it. It certainly happened. I don't disagree with that, but it's not something that God prescribed. In fact, what did God do?
>> Yes, he did. Yes, he in fact did. How many So >> yeah, who's Rachel? Were they sisters that were married to one guy? What are you talking about? What did the script what did the scripture say about >> on the flip on the flip side when you read uh Germania our pagans didn't have multiple stop I I want to express something very clearly right now we are not in the gauntlet >> the chat has not purchased their gauntlet they do not deserve the gauntlet right now and unfortunately the chat is restricting all of you with exception to shaman and cab and the individual UAL restricting all of you from being able to play together in one sandbox. So you can >> So what are you saying? We can't talk until the chat kick in.
>> No, you were going one at a time. All right. And I wasn't actually going to let anyone else up, Joe, because we've been here for almost four hours and the chat has [ __ ] failed miserably tonight. So >> like, yeah. So, >> hey Sarah, I've been reading the chat and people are like, I can't wait for the G. I'mma send in two more donations to get mode. Everyone's like, "No, no, no, no, no. Listen, they did. They got two out of 20 on the dono bar that they were supposed to hit for the gauntlet."
>> Okay. Two out of 20. I'm being graceful right now. All right. We were supposed to end 50 50 minutes ago. All right.
>> Thank I was letting you guys enjoy your time because I didn't want to like [ __ ] with the good conversation, but we I'm not I'm also not going to play the everyone talk over each other game either because we're not in >> gauntlet. Yeah, that is gauntlet.
>> So So I I know the panel doesn't like that, but you can talk to the chat about why why you're restricted right now.
>> I don't want gauntlet mode is >> problem with it.
>> Cap gauntlet mode is where everyone's looking forward to getting to. It's where it's a little bit of a free-for-all there. That's what everyone's referring to.
>> And as far as I would say I would say that the Hebrew Bible does not in any way restrict multiple wives. It actually talks about the parameters like Exodus um chapter 21.
>> Deuteronomy 17:17 says, "He shall not multiply wives to himself that his mind and his heart turn not away, neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."
>> Yes. Turn not away. Turn not away.
Exodus 21:10 before. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing, and marital rights. Exactly. You're allowed to have as it's where the Muslims got it from, brother. You're allowed to have as many wives you could provide for. It's Jewish law. Why? Well, who's Rachel and Leah? Are they sisters?
>> Yeah. The Bible has lots of examples of people. And >> who were they married to? Jacob, right?
>> The Bible has lots of examples of people violating biblical law. No doubt about that. So, the 12 sons of J. So, the 12 sons, >> that means it's intended. And Jesus even mentioned this in Mark 10:6. He says, "From the beginning it was not so."
What's he say? He says that man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. It's oneon upon one. So that's David.
>> Well, hold on.
>> You just you just buried yourself on that because if if you get punished for having multiple wives, Jacob married Rachel and Leah, two sisters, and in fact was blessed when he became Israel.
So he married two what women then was blessed with being the covenant carrying and then had 12 sons.
>> Right. And why? I'll prove I'll prove this by a story.
>> Okay. Go to David and tell us what David says. What God says to David about >> one thing at a time. One thing at a time Omar please. It's not fair. Let me respond. He just said not punish.
>> What happened with Joseph? Why did his brothers take him take his coat and throw him in a well? because his father showed favoritism. Why did his father show favoritism? Because he liked the wife better. Every time the Bible shows an example of polygamy, it's always results in a bad thing. Same thing with a Hagar and Abraham.
>> These are not things that are good examples in the Bible. And that's why it's supposed to be one to one.
>> It was a maid servant. Even worse.
>> Even worse. But notice she had to get kicked out into the wilderness because you know why? Because he listened to his because he listened to Sarah and Sarah manipulated him. I agree. Well, I'm not going to blame the woman. I'm not going to blame the woman.
>> Well, she told him to have sex with her, to have a child, to have the >> Abraham didn't have to say yes. HE'S THE PATRIARCH.
>> THAT'S also on him, too. I'm just trying to say that it was her idea.
>> But my point is the the people in the Bible are not presented as perfect heroes. I agree with you. Sinners, they are sinners that God uses. So, when someone talks about the sin in the Bible, absolutely, the Bible's filled with sinners. If I was in the Bible, I'd be one of the sinners in the Bible because their sin is on full display.
>> You just gave example two, three, and four. And I'll grant you all those. But I gave example one. Example one is Jacob was given Mary two sisters and he was not punished. In fact, Jacob became Israel who carried the name of the covenant and all his 12 sons are the reason we're arguing today. So show me where he was cursed.
>> Why too?
>> Deception.
>> It was a result of deception. What's the story?
>> Well, then the whole thing's cursed then.
>> Because people are sinners. Because like Ekko said, they're [ __ ] And the reason is is because of sin. And Jesus is the only way to deal with it. Not drugs and talking to the cosmos.
>> Okay. Okay. Who's doing drugs?
>> Where do drugs do you drink alcohol?
[laughter] >> Not Not usually.
>> Do you drink alcohol? Don't lie. You do.
>> No, I'm not an alcoholic drinker. I drink coffee.
>> I didn't call you an alcoholic. Do you drink alcohol? I can tell by your face you do.
>> No, I'm I'm Italian. I'm chubby. I'm Sicilian, but I don't drink alcohol.
>> You drink alcohol. Then you drink wine, don't you?
>> I I would say I would drink wine once a year.
>> Okay. I'm not I don't I don't That's my wife. I don't drink. It's not part of my life.
>> Al cool. Alcohol come al comes from flesh eating spirits which is how you commmence with demons. So I would say that you drink alcohol more than I >> drink wine. Jesus drank wine. This is a >> wine. No, I'm sorry. Wine in those days were aringence for plants to to >> You sound like a Baptist. It was still fermented grapes.
>> Yes. Yeah. It's a different manner though. the the the alcohol we >> How could you get drunk on it? Why did the Bible say don't be drunk on wine?
>> I can tell you exactly why. Because this is ancient practice from Egypt and they would take plants and they would use wine as an aringent to take the chemicals from the plants and drink them and get drunk off of the wine. It wasn't the wine, it was the ad mixtures what they used also that was happening first temple Judaism. First temple Judaism is all about that as well as what they were burning. So I'm simply just >> false false. But here's the point. I'll give you one example. Hammarabi. Do you have you heard about the river ordeal in Hammurabi? If a woman is accused of witchcraft or a man supposedly in the code of Hammurabi, you throw them into the river and if they drown, they're presumed innocent after their death. If they live, it's presumed that it's a trick.
>> So they witch either way. That's the code of Hamarani. You believe that's like the Bible?
>> No. No. I agree with you. And guess what? During the medieval ages when they were measuring who's a witch and who's not, they use that exact freaking method.
>> They're a witch.
>> I saw Monty Python.
>> I never saw Monty Python, but >> it's in Money Python. It's pretty funny.
She's a witch. How do you >> Are we trying to pretend that the Bible doesn't have shitty things like stoning your wife or >> I was about to get into or whatever?
>> I guess I have to say it again. I'm actually going to read the super chats that have come in. Uh, and here's what I'm going to say. If the chat by the time I finish reading these super chats would like uh to move on and we can move into uh gauntlet mode then then we will go forward. And that means there needs to be two big fat red donos on my screen. I should make it three just to be a [ __ ] [ __ ] but I won't. Um uh but I I don't think often you guys enjoy working for free, right? So uh I don't think you'd expect me to. Um, and we're working on the 4 hour mark now. So, if you want gauntlet mode, I'm all ready for it. I could go make some more coffee. Uh, but by the time we finish reading these, it better be in or else we're just going to cut it. But I'm going to let Joe ask his question and then we're going to leave. Um, for the >> I got five minutes, Sarah. I got five minutes.
>> Fair enough. For the donos, if you have a response, um, uh, feel free to respond, but respond promptly. I don't want to get into more battles uh after that. Okay. Uh fourth wiseman says, "Everything about the past is almost entirely false. Why try uh to fill the voids and will doing so you remain living in the past? Start actually living the future is where it's uh at not yesterday now." Quick response from Shaman or Cap.
>> His statement is false then because it's in the past now.
And and I would say that what Vocab just said is also in the past, therefore false. [laughter] >> Yes. Because everything in the past is false, he says.
>> And everything in the true is made up.
>> All right. Uh fourth wise men >> says, "This is a decent example why I don't much like getting into this religious crap. It's like everyone's trying to remind you the day you stubbed your toe when you were an infant.
Pointless in my opinion." Uh quick one from Cab or Shaman.
>> Yes. Fourth wise men the conversation actually has many points where it's way deeper than that. Especially when I was talking to Ekko notice here we are talking about ultimate things why the world is the way it is. How to make the way the world it should be. How do we know how the world should be? These are very important things. It's not just religious crap. And his name is interesting. The fourth wise man.
>> I want to talk to him and ask him what's the source of wisdom. How does he know what's wise and what's foolish? All these things require standards. And I would say he's saying it's a religious crap, but really it's worldview issues that relate to larger issues of life. No matter who you are, it's not just religious stuff because everyone's got to answer these questions. If they don't, they're living without thinking.
And I would say that's not a life well-lived.
>> All right.
>> Interesting. I would say, yeah, I would say that fourth wise men would be a depiction of the uh the three wise men who are also known as the three kings or the three magi. And then magi as everyone who knows ancient history of time knows that magi is a sorestrian priest shaman and fourth wiseman is referring to himself in the present also tip tapping into the past as well. Uh and the religious thing I would say I understand the idea it's easy to say you know what um throw all that trash away.
I'm going to go with just general like uh societal objective morality so to speak but I would say that it's important because it depends on why you're here. Like for me, I think it's important to be able to communicate with with people in real time. Uh uh and so you have to speak their language. And so if I only knew the Quran or only knew this or only knew that, then I would not be able to communicate with everyone collectively or know about Odinist. And so I think it's important for us to understand the history of the world. uh for us to make an effective change and transform it into a new day as opposed to um samsaraada the endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth. So I think there's warnings that uh that we have and we're repeating the circle again.
We're trying to blow up the world, you know, so we can build a a temple for the third time and we're g you know, redo the sacrifices and uh that's wild wild [ __ ] Uh so yeah, I'm hoping to wake up a few people to think. All right. Fourth wiseman says, "No more Bible studies for me. If I'm to do this, I might as well sit on the floor with wooden blocks until I figure out how to stack them.
Devolve, wasting time that will never be replaced." The lurch.
Uh fun fact, if you use Gregorian calendar and go back from time uh zero or 25th December um zero or 25th December 000000, which didn't actually exist back then, but if you go back nine months, two weeks, three days, Mary got knocked up on April 1st. Any thoughts to the two of you?
>> I'll pass.
>> All right, John.
Uh, you know, I would I'll just say, okay, that's I I can't I have no way of proving or disproving that or about any, you know, >> it's >> it's an April Fool's kind of joke kind of thing. Got knocked up on April 1st.
>> No, I mean, Fourth Wiseman always comes in with the mo, you know, with he always comes in with something a big big thinking question. So, all I saw was 00125 two week three is I'm lost. I can't count it.
>> It's funny. The guy who doesn't like the Bible takes his name from a biblical narrative though. I got you. You got to love it.
>> I no don't appropriate don't appropriate. Uh Zor never says it never says there were three wise men first of all.
>> No, but the No, no. They were referred to as wise men, but they were the magi.
Correct. Three magi. Yes. And the magi are Zoroastrian priests. Zorastronism existed for thousands of years before all this stuff in the lands of Ariana which would be during old kingdom Egypt and modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan and half of Iran and a little bit of India and Zarustra is dated as back potentially as 500 years before Abraham existed. So >> yeah, you know the Zoroastrians are an interesting bunch.
>> They are.
>> One problem they had is they're kind of born into it. They were never very good at procolitization and so what happened to them they got they died out. It's not it's not a religion that really had any permanent staying >> and then die out. Jesus carried it on where you think he got all his stuff from. Zoroast have to say >> Zoroastrians use fire in their worship to connect with the divine.
>> Not in gauntlet mode. I love you Joe but we're not there. You can blame the chat and yell at them.
>> When did Jesus use fire in his worship to connect with the divine?
>> No. No. I I [clears throat] think uh cab I think you need the he the the the Jews the Hebrew writings expand on the essence of the fire itself and as a person who's a trinitarian and believes in the holy spirit you need to tap into the ruach which would be the where that came from and then you tap into the essence of the fire itself so when you tap into they weren't worshiping fire >> I didn't say worship I said use fire in their worship to connect to the divine I didn't say fire yeah no exactly they did use the fire but if you understand the essence of the fire and what the essence of the fire. It's actually it's very poetic and super deep stuff. I they didn't actually worship I never said you said they worshiped fire. I'm saying they didn't worship fire was the was the essence of the fire itself similar to the essence of the soul of the you know it's um primordial essence of fire of creation.
>> Uncle Fatty sends a big six six and six and says why are the red letter verses allegedly red Matt Mark John and Luke?
It's just a way to type type set so you know which words Jesus said for easy reading. It's just a it's something that printers do. It's a modern innovation.
>> Didn't uh didn't uh was it Thomas Jefferson or No, that was like no.
Didn't Sir Isaac Newton create his own Bible that just had only the stuff that Jesus said according to the people who actually met him? Jefferson did a Bible that was the the life teaching and morals of Jesus and he took out anything that related to supernatural elements.
So any miracles, miracle claims, anything that was supernatural, he took out and kept all the naturalistic elements. So it was just essentially Jesus as a good miracle, I'm sorry, as a good uh moral example.
>> How how about Sir Isaac? I think Sir Isaac Newton did one as well. By the way, I if you notice, I didn't attack miracles uh in any way. whatsoever because I believe in miracles fully.
I believe in miracles.
>> Uh fourth wiseman says, "I get better results just by taking mental notes from nature itself. And the best thing about this is it's not convoluted, bastardized, into oblivion."
Uh Shaman, >> who made nature?
>> There you go. Uh Shaman, you age like wine. I think uh this meow person has been like drooling in the chat for you.
He doesn't like wine. Be careful. He doesn't like it.
>> No, no, I don't. Wine. Wine uses an astringent to make plant medicines accessible to for ceremonial purposes.
Okay. But uh the alool, the flesheating spirits to to feed the demons inside of you and tap into the satanic as you would call it. Uh no thank you.
>> And fourth wiseman with the big 10 uh says, "Get the house planning in the works, Benjamin. Next year you'll be amazed at the results. I can send you some photos of an easy system that works well. And Ben, those were that that concludes all the ones from Fourth Wiseman if you wanted to say anything to them.
>> Guys, I got to take off. Thank you, Omar. Thank you, Sarah.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, I absolutely have that house in in the planning. If I wasn't so overloaded like I lost my voice yesterday for being a dumbass and yelling at Clay after I was out shearing and dusting my throat and all that crap.
>> I was listening to that. That was wild.
freaking stupid.
>> Um, and MadMapper sends a big 10 to say unfuck. Unfortunately, you guys did not unfuck. Tom Carpenter sends a 777 says, "Don't be drunk on wine. Use vodka."
Yes. Shout out to you. All right. Um, Shaman, would you like to give your final thoughts to the panel? They did not purchase their gauntlet.
>> Oh, yes. Sorry. Thank you. And Um, Clay sends the big 10 on Cash App and says, "Thank you with the big tomatoes."
Shout out to all of you. I love you guys so much. Thank you, Clay. I appreciate you. Uh, Shaman, your final thoughts, please.
>> I would say thank you Sarah and thank you everyone. Uh, thanks to Cab. Good to see him on the on the Raging Tomato for the first time. Hopefully see we'll see him back. Um, you know, he's definitely uh he knows what he's talking about. Um, that doesn't mean I agree with it. But I definitely wanted to have this conversation with somebody who was on a certain level obviously with next time I'm going to have my my [ __ ] notes. I was going off the top of my head and I don't remember the last time I ever claimed to be a a Christian or New Testament scholar. But what I am is a person has logic and reason. And I would say uh to all of our friends watching this, if you were to take out anything that has to do with hearsay, take out Paul who wasn't there. doesn't mean you don't like to his faith or whatever, but take that secondary and take out Luke who was brought in by Paul and only look at the the text that were written by those or attributed to be written by those who actually were chosen by Jesus.
Then you will get a better idea of what Jesus actually meant. Read the Gospel of Thomas which is found in the Dead Sea Scroll and get a better understanding of what Jesus the man, the prophet, the Messiah said. uh and look at the Ebianites which were early first century Christians uh and they call them protobionites because the word Ebianite wasn't written till the second century but they were still nonetheless they were Torah observing Jews who accepted Jesus the Messiah um and we're expanding on that and um and you'll have a better idea or just continue and you know if you want to keep following Paul just understand at least go after the thing and find out what Paul said and what his actual apostles of Jesus said And you'll see two different degrees of a story.
You'll see a much larger big expansive marble story um than the one that was uh significantly more humble where Jesus didn't say come to me. Look at look here the book who came to correct uh a wrong so to speak who came to clean the temple who came to fulfill the law and in fulfilling something you don't change it you affirm something. So um you know it was a good uh good debate I think. Mhm.
Yeah. No, you guys did really great with uh pushing in different uh perspectives.
I think you got a little lost on the like I think you were trying to reach into other >> bags where uh who the [ __ ] talking right now?
Um I think you were trying to reach into kind of like other bags. Uh, and I like kind of saw where you were going, but you you were mixing things around without bringing them to the surface that you're mix that you're mixing them in. And so he was getting in one direction. You were going in the other direction and and you were kind of like two ships crossing the den on some points. But uh, fourth wise comes in with a big 20 says, "Let me enlighten you." WI equals three wise men is three semen. To say three wise men is to say three three semen. I I'm not biblical affiliated via username. It's a more decent meaning using the fourth wise man, by the way. It's not the fourth wise man. Man, not men. And it came in just moments too late because he already left. Thank you, Fourth Wiseman. We love you so much. Um, and maybe the chat needs to go figure out uh why they pissed everyone off tonight. I love you all so much. I'm not even going to raid you anywhere. I don't give a [ __ ] where you go, but [ __ ] off.
>> This video was somewhat informative.
>> That's all I got for today. Until next time.
>> See you. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat.
[music] [music] Heat.
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
20:36
Business
SuperBike Factory Has Gone... What's Next for the Motorcycle Industry?
thatbikersimon
11K views•2026-07-22