Mike Winger

My last stream for three months and I'm very excited. I apologize to you guys. The last stream I'll do for three months and I've got a lot to talk about today. I'm going to have some important announcements, but first, I always like to lead with something good and interesting and helpful to people. And this is going to be all of those things. Question number one. What bomb are we about to drop on the Passion Translation? And I do mean a bomb. This is not exaggeration in any way, shape or form. New information about the Passion Translation. This is the translation. Okay, let me give you a little bit of the backstory. Oh, does that help? Let me give you a little bit of the backstory. Brian Simmons, author of the Passion Translation, is very much a hyper charismatic. He started off pitching this new translation of the Bible as like, this will unlock God's love language to you. I mean, he actually pitched it in advertising as it unlocks the love language of God and it. It speaks past the mind and into the heart. And all this. He said that Jesus walked through the wall of his room and that God called him to do this translation, a new English translation. He leveraged his prior work as a translator. As a translator. He wasn't for the Piakuna New Testament back in the 80s and 90s. He was there, but he was not a translator. So he leverages all of this. It's a fraud. It's all a fraud. It's a fraud. His visions, his translation. And we have proof. We have proof about the translation in particular. And the proof now is better than before. Now, before, what I had was my own exposes on the Passion translation. Years ago, like six, seven years ago or something like that, where I went through it. People asked me, can you help us with this translation, Mic? My church started using it and it sold millions of copies. And. And it got an endorsement from Bill Johnson. Bill Johnson has his own version of it where he wrote the foreword and Bethel still sells it. In fact, when it came under fire, Bethel doubled down on their support for the Passion translation, which is a shameful and bad thing they did to the body of Christ that they still have not acknowledged or answered for. But what's coming next is bigger than all that. So I did an expose on it. I tried to show the problems with it, the inconsistencies, the bad translation translating work where you're taking a word and you're saying it says something it doesn't mean. One of the craziest things was Brian claimed he was translating from the original Aramaic of the New Testament, which if you know a little bit about the Bible, you know there is no such thing as original. And you're like, but Mike, didn't Jesus speak Aramaic? Hold on. He said he translated from Galatians in Aramaic. Galatians, the letter written by Paul the Apostle to the Greeks, who he wrote to in Greek into a Greek speaking part of the world to a bunch of gentiles who don't speak. So he says he's translating Aramaic. I don't know how he's sold millions of copies, but he has, with the endorsement of people like Brian Houston, Brian and Bobby Houston and the whole Hillsong family, they said, and Bill Johnson and a whole list of people on the Passion Translation website. You can look at the endorsements. I think they'll be dropping like flies within the next two weeks. But I hired scholars because people didn't listen to me. Some people listen, some people didn't listen. Within the movement, there just wasn't really a whole lot of training with the things I was saying. And so I hired scholars. By the way, I'm about to go on my three month break, so I'm wearing this shirt. I'm not procrastinating, I'm doing side quests. So I hired scholars, well known, like highly reputable scholars. Craig Blomberg, Douglas Moo, right? Ninja Gupta, Tremper Longman. I mean, Douglas Moo is like the guy for the book of Romans and he reviewed Romans in the Passion translation. Craig Blomberg is like the guy for the book of 1 Corinthians and he reviews 1 Corinthians in the Passion translation. Tremper Longman is the guy for the poetry in the Old Testament, like Song of Solomon. He reviews Song of Solomon in the Passion translation. I hired these guys, they gave reviews, I made their work publicly available. Still no significant traction in the movement. There's some, there's some movement as far as, hey, we're not going to endorse this. Instead, Bethel comes out. Here's the backstory. I'll tell you what's happening next. This is the first question which what Baum is about to drop on the Passion Translation. Instead of acknowledging what these scholars in their field have said, these Christians who love the Lord and they're not fighting against gifts or spiritual works or anything like that, instead of listening to them, instead of taking a serious glance at the evidence that I've brought, the people I've interviewed, the evidence that his claims about translating the Pyacuna were not true, I got quotes from his former co workers to say he wasn't trained as a translator and he didn't do translating work. He probably helped as a checker. So he did work alongside of a translator, but he wasn't doing the translating. He knew the original, the language of the people. He doesn't know Greek. He doesn't know Hebrew. He doesn't know Aramaic. That's what I'm going to claim. So not the way a translator has to. So nobody listened. Bethel comes out and. Or not enough listened. Bethel comes out and they actually do this rediscovering Bethel series on YouTube where they're talking about these things and a video called Is the Passion Translation Heresy? Something like that. And they run defense and do cover up culture for this terrible, fraudulent work. That's kind of where it sat for a long time. I was like, look, I did my work. I've showed my evidence. I've done more than enough diligence on this. I moved on to other things. But then Mark Strauss, a scholar, a Greek scholar, he is in an interview and he's asked about the Passion Translation. What do you think about this one? And he said that he had had a private conversation with Brian Simmons and that Brian Simmons admitted to him privately that he does not translate Aramaic. He doesn't know Aramaic, which is the key to his translation initially was, I'm translating from the original Aramaic directly from that to English. And he admits he doesn't know Aramaic. He uses a website. Mark Strauss says this in an interview, which was true with all the evidence that says it's true. And then someone sent it to me, and I start talking with a guy named David Fish. And then John Marc Baker, the three of us, I'll show you a clip of the video we already recorded. So I did. We did this like a week ago. And it's still being edited. It's not done yet. It'll be out probably next week sometime. We, we went down the rabbit hole on this, especially David Fish. Props to David Fish. This guy went down the rabbit hole and found example after example of example of where he was getting his Aramaic translation by copy and pasting from websites from other people. And not just other people, other people who don't know Aramaic, who don't translate from the Aramaic, but who have like, spurious. Like he's copy and pasting his from God secrets of Hebrew and Greek from the Aramaic. Supposedly he's copy and pasting from a guy who translated an Aramaic that didn't exist and would never even produce the supposed original manuscripts that he was translating from. He said it was his and they were secret and he wouldn't let anybody see them, like Joseph Smith. And his stuff was so bad that his publisher revoked the work and denounced it publicly. Brian's copying that guy. But it got worse. We found that he's copying and pasting all over the place. In the Passion translation. He's pasting and copying where he says it's original work, not from any other translation. He's copying and pasting significant sections from the message from the living Bible, from the new living translation, from other works where he's just stealing. In fact, he'll even go through like five verses where he copies a bunch from the message. And then for the next five or six verses, he's copying a bunch from, like, the living Bible. The implication is that this dude is writing his translation and he's got the message open and he's like, oh, I like that. Oh, I'm copying too much from this one. Someone might catch that. I'll switch over to the living Bible. Boom. Let me copy several from that. Like a kid in school that's not even very good at plagiarizing. This was so bad that when people. We started seeing it behind the scenes. And we're asking. We asked a Greek scholar, a guy who's actually a translator. We asked him, what do you think about this? And his comments were that this was so bad that if he was in school and he presented the Passion translation as his work, he would not only get an F, he'd probably be expelled from the school because it was that bad of plagiarizing. It's pervasive. It's in the text. And we've recorded a massive long video all about it, presenting the evidence along with documentation to support it. I hope that it changes everything because this is a fraud that's been perpetrated on the body of Christ. So here's a clip from that coming video that's going to be not on my channel because guess what? I'm on break. We recorded this. John Mark took care of the editing and everything. David Fish did the brunt of the research. I brought some stuff from the past, research I've done years ago. I. When David and me talked previously, I was like, david, look, here's an article. I suspected he was. He was stealing from Victor Alexander. Here's an article that somebody wrote years ago about this. Check into this work. I think he may have borrowed from that. But David, then he went all out and he found tons and tons of stuff. I didn't know about. So tons of original work there. Anyway, here's a clip from it. I'm going to play it for you guys and I'll pause it a little to let you know what's coming. Deservedly. And it's coming on Brian Simmons and on Broad Street Publishing. Broad Street Publishing. You have been told, you have been warned. People have begged you to deal with the Passion. You ignored it. You version, You've been told, you've been begged, you refuse to remove the Passion from your website as it perpetrates fraud. One of the sources he copies from is the Mirror Bible, a literal heretic translation. It's an actual heretical. It's not just bad, it's actually heretical. It's the worst translation I've ever seen. It is worse than the pirate Bible. It is worse than the New World translation from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Brian's actually copying stuff from it on occasion. So here we go. Here's the clip for the coming video. I'll be in the corner so you'll still see me here. This thing is fake. The claims are fake. The guy is fake. It's all fake. It's just a disaster. He said he was getting this from others and he put down a couple of websites now. A couple? That's Mark Strauss, right? That's the scholar who they interviewed. He's just telling him what's real. This is large scale fraudulent work being foisted upon the body of Christ, propped up by spiritual leaders in the Charismatic church. Some of the same ones that I've been doing videos about recently. Okay, we're not making this up, guys. We're uncovering cover up culture. So that's Mark Strauss. He'll talk about that in the video how Simmons admitted to a scholar, like, I don't actually translate. I use somebody else's stuff. And the somebody else is also not translating is also a fraud. So we have a fraud using a fraud, not original translation work like he said on his website, like he promised to the multitudes. Now here on your screen, you'll see a lot of this in the coming video on the Minor Prophets YouTube channel. Not mine again. I'll be doing side quests. This is like the charts that David Fish put together. You see the red letters that's showing on the left side of the screen you've got the Passion translation and in the middle you've got the new living or maybe the message somewhere else he's borrowing from. And then you have the newer version of the Passion. Because sometimes Brian Will change things. We're getting to all the changes now. He's tried to, it looks like, cover up, lie about his work. I am so glad. I'm so glad that this is probably going to put the nail in the coffin. Like, I hope they revoke this translation. It would be the righteous thing to do, to pull it off the shelves, to do a recall. And for those who've endorsed it, to be seen as this. I cannot trust this leader's discernment, because that's the reality. So for the sake of the purity of the body and accountability and truth. Yeah, you're gonna. You're gonna see this video.

John Mark Baker

Going down to verse 12, we see a very interesting way that Brian begins this verse. God's purpose was that we Jews who were the first. You'll notice this matches exactly with the new living translation. God's purpose was that we Jews who were the first.

Mike Winger

This is one of the craziest smoking guns you could possibly have. I want to press this home. The guy claimed Jesus himself. Hold on, you're going to hear John Mark. That's John Mark. The other one was David Fish. Great guy. He's doing a great job. When Brian Simmons steals people's content, he doesn't just. This is my phrase for it, okay? It looks like it to me. Looks like there's a huge number of examples of it. But when he copies and pastes from other people's work, here's why it's so unique. He's not copying and pasting the things we're catching him on here, things that are common phrases. Like everybody translates it that way. No, it's more like Brian routinely takes phrases that are only ever in one version. Usually not a real translation, but more like a paraphrase, oftentimes like the message, which is not ever meant to be a translation. That's why it's called the Message Bible, not the Message, Message Translation. When he takes them, he's taking phrases that are unique to that person's work because they're not in the Greek, they're not in the Hebrew, they're not in any source. They're an extrapolation, a unique way of translating something. And he'll copy and paste that content, which shows. It's not like he's coming up with this on his own. There's so many examples. It will be, I think, undeniable when you see the video appeared to him and commissioned him to write this. So John Mark here is saying Jesus himself. He walks through the wall of his room. This is Brian. He Said it many times. Jesus walked through the wall of my room, you know, and he told me, I'm commissioning you to write a translation. It's going to reveal my heart. And he thinks he's going to bring a revival. He calls it the Revival Bible. It's all smoke and mirrors. And instead of translating, if it's full, chock full of dishonesty, I don't think Jesus himself commissions people to lie.

John Mark Baker

I believe we have conclusively demonstrated not just one deception, not just something over here, not just an isolated lie, a pattern of covering up, a pattern of deceiving the body of Christ, and to do so with the very words of God himself. I shudder. I shudder to think of what it would be like to stand before God and to have so twisted his words in the way that the Passion translation is done.

Mike Winger

Amen. Amen. This thing is Amen. So, Oh, I am delighted at the idea of this fraudulent work. In my opinion, that's what I would consider it being foisted no longer upon the body of Christ. I'm delighted at the idea that hopefully we're at a point now with this Covenant Culture series that people are waking up and people are realizing that these leaders, they trusted above themselves, above even the plain reading of Scripture, that they trusted them, that they're realizing, like, I gotta test all things and hold fast to what's good, that those people are gonna go, yeah, Passion Translation's got to go. It's got to go. Because the scariest thing about Brian Simmons to me is not what he's already done, but what he hasn't done yet. He has promised that God would give him revelations in the future that would spark the next End Times revival. And it would be the second coming of Jesus, which in his theology. I have all the videos on this. I could have made stuff on it. People think I. I just want to make video. I could have made 100 videos on Brian Simmons. Brian Simmons believes and has taught. I should say he's taught. He changes what he believes sometimes after he gets called out. So he has taught that the second coming of Jesus is not Jesus returning. In the typical Christian view. It's rather us becoming the second Coming. Right? Yeah. This is manifest Sons of God theology. This is like Bob Jones, like William Branham stuff. This is not Christian teaching. And he has this view that we're going to sort of become the second coming of Christ. He'll talk about how revelation. There is no second coming in the Bible. He says this. I have it on recording everything I'm Saying, I've got it recorded so I could. You want to press me on it, force me to make videos on it. Wait till I come back from my break in September sometime. So this we're coming of Jesus is talked about in the Bible as being coming in the clouds. Jesus is coming in the clouds. Brian Simmons says clouds are a reference to people. Clouds are referring to people. And he's saying that Basically you're a 200% person, just like Jesus is God and man, you're a 200% person. He says. He says that we're almost a threat to the Trinity in the nature of who we are as Christians and other such teachings. Brian also says that he's going to one day go back into heaven and God's going to give him John chapter 22. And John 22, it's a book called John 22. There aren't 22 chapters in John. And it's the greater works of Jesus that were never recorded. And that Brian's going to get this one day, and when he brings this new revelation, his next revelation to the church, that that's going to bring the end times revival that he's talking about and help us grow into Christ's fullness and all this stuff. Guys, this is dangerous, okay? This is dangerous. And so the body needs to be warned. This could have been taken care of six, seven years ago when I hired scholars, when I did a little video content, but it was the charismatic leadership, not the individuals as much the leadership, that decided, no, Brian's one of ours, Mike's not. So let's ignore him. I love the Passion translation. End of story. Well, watch out for the Minor Prophets YouTube channel. I have a link to their channel down below. It's going to be later this week. I don't know what day. Working on the video. And here's the spoiler. This is the announcement. The bomb's about to drop. The comeuppance are coming up for the Passion translation for Broad Street Publishing, for Brian Simmons, for those who endorsed it and continued endorsing it even after it was exposed, even after godly Christian men who have devoted their lives to the study of scripture all agreed, this thing is bad. Guys don't use it. And they didn't care because they're like, no, no, no, no, you guys aren't spiritual. Do you even speak in tongues? Do you speak in tongues? I'm sorry, Craig Blomberg, I don't know if you speak in tongues or not, so I'm ignoring you. Doesn't matter if you've had a lifetime of service to the body of Christ in this area and it's actually your field and you're trying to tell us, hey, just because you like how it sounds doesn't mean it's God's word. This is changing the word of God. You know, Trumper Longman, I asked him, what do you think about Song of Solomon? Do you have anything good to say about it? Because I'm just interviewing them for their opinions. Do you have anything positive to say about it? And he goes, no, I have nothing good to say about it. To hear a scholar say that about a translation is like the biggest red flag ever. So yes, it's coming and I'll be on break, so don't ask me about it later because you'll just have a very long multi hour video. All right, that's question number one. What bomb is dropping on the Passion translation? But I have an announcement to make. So you're not going to see me for a bit, but if you want to, you can see me in person. I will be. Actually, it's at my church where this is going to be, but it's going to be the Desert Apologetics. That's the name of the organization. They've been trying to get me to come out to one of their conferences for years. I did one a long time ago and they've been attempting to get me to come out to another one years later. And it's got me there. Oh, by the way. So I was asked by Ali, who puts on the conferences, he goes, what if it was at your church, would you come? And I was like, sure. Next thing I know they're doing a conference at my church. So yeah, there we go. This is at my church. Grace, Ev Free and La Mirada. You guys can come and be part of the service and the services or whatever you want to call it. The conference, it is on September 12th from 8am to 6pm it's just a one day intensive conference. It's called the Everyday Apologist. And we're focusing on the conference overall, I would say focuses on apologetics for evangelism. Apologetics towards Evangelism. So equipping you to use apologetics, leverage it for the purpose of evangelism. That's how I would summarize it. That's my impression of what we're doing here. There's me, I'll be there. Jay Warner. Wallace Phoenix Hayes. Laneige Garrison. John Solieri. I'm sorry if I got your last name wrong, John. You're probably used to it. Sullier. Maybe one of those. Probably. I'm guessing Joe Adams, Ali Black will also be there. And Eric Thomas, two guys that are actually part of my church. Eric Thomas and Doug Axe, and both great guys as far as I know from all my experience with them. And I know how to pronounce Eric's name even though nobody else would. Unless you told him. Because Thomas. T H O E N N E. That's confusing. Nobody's going to know that. How does anybody know? You're allowed change your name, Eric. Make it easier. I'm joking. So it's hosted by GraceTV free. The address is there, the information's there, the little QR codes there. I don't know if you can see it to use it, but just go to desertapologetics.com if you guys want. Can I maybe make the QR code bigger in case someone wants to scan it? Hold on, hold on, hold on. A little janky, but that might work. Take a screenshot, scan it maybe. Anyways, that's coming up September 12th, right? If you want to be part of it, you're welcome to. And I don't know, I have no idea what ticket prices are or other plans for the day, but go to the website desertapologetics.com remember, desert is with 1s, not 2 and you can see it there. That's the current plan. I. I'm excited. I'm excited about this. I think I'm probably more excited about this than I even normally would be. Just because I'm excited about taking a break. That's the real thing I'm excited about. I'm gonna take a break. So this is my last stream and I'm gonna go to your guys questions here in a second. Last stream. I'm saying last stream instead of last video because there is a small chance, and it's pretty small, that I'll come out with a longer video and I'll kick it out really in a short period of time. But it's very small. It's like 5% chance. So most likely is the last long video you're going to see of me on my channel for three months. You will not see streams. You will see a lot of shorts. We have stockpiled a bunch of pre done short videos, you know, one to three minutes and those ones will be going up like 40, 60 of them or something like that. 50, some big number over the course of the next three months. So you'll still get regular content from me on that. And I also just did a video with Ali Beth Stuckey that we recorded previously. And it just went up today, this morning. So that's there as well. Otherwise I'll be going on break. So that's the plan. And honestly, guys, I'm so happy for not the turmoil, but the good stuff that's happening inside the charismatic movement. There's believers who are rising up, who are speaking truth, who are asking for not just surface level, I'm sorrys, but actual, like, real change. We need to see the actual change, like what has to happen so this won't happen again. Because the fraudulent work of the spirit, the fake stuff, the fake prophecies, and then the abuse that always comes alongside with that. Because if you're willing to fake prophecy, not you just got some stuff wrong, not you in good faith tried and messed up or failed in some way. I mean, the intentional, deliberate fabricating and exaggerating of prophecy and miracles and those sorts of things. The kind of person who's willing to do that is willing to do all kinds of other stuff. And that's what we've discovered. So, yeah, I'm excited because I see. I see you guys, I see charismatics who love Jesus, who are the most sincere people who would lay your lives down for Christ, saying, I'm just going to do the right thing. I'm going to ask for proper accountability, and I'm not going to be easily dissuaded from that with half measures. Half measures, which there's been a lot of half measures, unfortunately, doesn't mean you're mad. You're just not going to be tricked, that's all. All right, so we'll go to your guys questions in the live chat. And that's gonna be number two. Let me go pull it up here. Anna Boshear says hi, Mike, still here. Loving and appreciating every video, do you think? Let me just say real quick, I'm gonna back up, back up a little. Okay, at the end of this video, I will play for you guys a clip of Brian Simmons that I've not made public before. I'm not even sure which one. I'm gonna open up my folder. I'm gonna find one at the end of the video. It'll take a minute. And. And I'll play one of the clips because of the things I just said. I thought it would help to reinforce it with actually a little bit more that I have never actually shared publicly because I'm not obsessed with the guy. So I've had it for years. Okay, number two, Anna Boshier says Hi Mike. Still here. Loving and appreciating every video. Awesome. And I remember your name, Anna. You've definitely been around for quite a while and I'm grateful for that. Do you think a good argument against Calvinism is the fact God chose the people of Israel, but clearly some Israelites didn't choose God back. Oh, that's interesting to think about. So there is an Arminian view that I'm not. Don't fully have my head wrapped around personally enough to weigh in more on it. But that election is corporate, not individual. And God doesn't elect a person, he elects a people. That's how I would summarize the view. Maybe others who know it better would summarize it differently. And so when they look at election and they try to find, when they say God's elect or God's chosen, they often try to see this as a corporate act. There's a group that was chosen and this is exactly what they would leverage. They would say, well, God chose Israel, but not every individual within Israel was a person of faith. They had to individually be people of faith to really be part of God's promises in the fullest sense eternally. And so that works for a number of passages. If you go, oh, this is like a corporate thing. Yeah, it's a corporate election type thing that works for a number of passages in the Bible. If you're going to leverage it as an argument against Calvinism, I think you have to do a little more work though. So you can't just say corporate election is a thing. Therefore Calvinism is wrong. Because God can of course corporately and individually elect people because he can choose a nation for a purpose and he can also elect individuals within that nation for salvation. So that could be both. Let me give you one verse that actually pushes back. Let me think if I can find it. It's in Acts. It's been a while since I thought about that. I'm looking for it while I talk here. But the, the thing that would be a defeater for this is any passage that indicates that there was an individual election or at least a challenge to it. Like there was a person who was individually chosen for salvation as opposed to. And the way that I think the more Arminian guys would say is you were chosen. Like you were chosen, but you were chosen in Christ. Christ is ultimately the one chosen and you were chosen in Him. So because you're in Christ, you're chosen. There's definitely a truth to that. The question is, do you use that to say that God did Not choose you individually in a Calvinistic type sense is the next question you ask there. So let me see if I can find this passage. I wonder if I can find it. It's a good passage for this topic. It's super interesting and I'm just spacing on exactly where it is. It's in Acts, it's about a group of people getting saved, which does happen a few times in Acts. I'm not finding it, I'm sorry, I'm just spacing on it right now. I'll remember it as soon as we finish the stream. Maybe one of you guys will remember it in the chat. You can put it in there. But as many as were appointed unto eternal life, or the phrasing, I forget, that's how many people got saved. The ones who were appointed to it got saved. And so there's like a passage there, we'll find it. That implies individual election, does it not? So I just grant that passage. I go, yeah, look, there's an individual election. God did choose you individually. It's not merely corporate. Now you can try to fold those together. But I just want to say I would push against that argument against Calvinism because I do see individual election as something that appears to be the case in the New Testament. But then what's my pushback against Calvinism? See, Calvinism is not just the idea that you are individually elect, that God's chosen you. That's actually not the core of Calvinism. It's regeneration preceding faith. That's the core. So what if I hold that God chose me, truly chose me from before the foundation of the world, chose Mike Winger for salvation. What if I hold to that, but I also choose, or also hold that I freely chose God? That's the part you have to deny. For Calvinism is you did not freely choose, not in the sense most people think of freely. And we can argue about compatibilist will and all this, but most humans we say like, yeah, you didn't choose where you could have said yes and you could have said no. You couldn't genuinely have said yes or no before you were regenerate. This is the key of Calvinism. Before you were regenerated, you only would have said no. No matter what God did, you would have said no. No matter how much the Holy Spirit drew you in some sense, no matter how much conviction of your sin came, no matter how much awareness of the cross or encounters with Jesus, you would have said no until that heart was regenerate, that like you were actually made new. And then the point at which you make, you're made new. You can only say yes. So the only question with your salvation is, did you get regenerated? And if you didn't, you always say no. And if you did, you always say yes. That's the core in my mind of Calvinism is that particular view, the inability to say yes until you have an inability to say no. Before regeneration, can't say yes. After regeneration, can't say no. And on that hangs all of Tulip, all of the Calvinist view. So I push back in a different way. But I don't know, maybe one of you guys found the ax first. Maybe we'll find it a little bit later. We'll find it today. Someone will put it in the chat that as many as were appointed to salvation believed something like that. Man, I'm spacing on it. I'll remember it later if we do. I'll bring it back up later in the. In the Q and A. Oh, and can I say, I don't think regeneration precedes faith. Like, I have videos on this. I have other videos where I talk about this. I don't believe that regeneration precedes faith. I think faith is causal in your salvation and not a result of your salvation. And then I'll be accused, it'll be said of me that I am a. I believe that I'm working together for my salvation. I'm working with God for my salvation. But faith is not a work. And I point you to my old video on Calvinism where I said, faith is not a work. And that's a major objection to the Calvinist perspective. A lot of people don't understand that video. So I'll acknowledge ahead of time. You may not get what I'm trying to say, but I tried. All right, next question was number three. So this comes from Faith Hochstetler, who says, hi, Mike, I'm a teenager who just got a job at a cafe and my boss said that I can. Can't wear any religious clothing because some people might be offended. How do I handle this situation in a biblical way? So here's some principles that I would process personally. The question is your faith being targeted? Such as the case with Daniel. When Daniel was part of Nebuchadnezzar's empire and he's serving there, they made a rule like, you can't pray to anyone other than Nebuchadnezzar during this time. And he goes out and he prays openly out in the window, like in the windowsill or on the balcony. He's openly praying people can see him. He could have done it privately. People wouldn't have known he took a stand because his faith was being targeted. And he's like, no, I will take a stand. If that's a scenario, we take the stand. We stand up. But is that the scenario? So does your work have rules generally about clothing? Like, we don't want messages that are not part of what we are trying to present as a corporation. So for instance, if you had a Megadeth T shirt, they'd be like, ah, Megadeth isn't really something we want you to wear at work. Then I would be like, okay, probably this is just a general rule that's not targeting my religious beliefs in any way. It's just about the way they wanted to do. You know, they want to do their business. In which case I would comply. I'd be like, yeah, just like for instance, when I worked at In N Out for a couple years, when I was in my early 20s, I worked at In N Out for a couple years and I wore a uniform. And if I had showed up with a shirt that had a cross on it that says Jesus is the way they would have told me, you have to change. And it was of course a reasonable thing to say because like literally there's a uniform here, everybody wears the same thing. So is this you can't wear your religious shirt the result of a general policy that is fairly handled across all areas, then okay, I get it. But if it's specific religious oppression, whereas like here's my co worker which says my body, my choice is on her shirt. My body, my choice. And she can wear that, but I can't wear my shirt that says Jesus, then I'm going to wear the shirt and get fired personally. I'm going to say, no, no, no, this is not consistent. You can't just target expression related to Christianity or even just religion. Like if you have people sharing their heartfelt, deep seated, controversial views on their shirts, then I'm going to do mine too. You can't stop me. That's how I would counsel you. And that's kind of, I think, what we see in the New Testament when we see the Book of Acts. They go, stop preaching in the name of Jesus and they just do it more. So that's where I think we should go. Now there's times where Christians hide because of persecution or you're tactful and strategic. But at least that's how I would handle it. And I would encourage others to consider handling it. That way as well. Easy for me to say. It's not my job on the line. Right? So maybe talk to your pastor about this and get some counsel from them as well. They know you better. But there's my thoughts. All right. Don Miguel, Don Miguel says, how do I respond to people who claim that it's better for abortion to be legal because abortion rates are reportedly higher in places where it's illegal? Also enjoy your well earned break. Thank you. I plan on it. I'll be taking a couple weeks just off off. And then I'm gonna be ignoring the world and book writing. Although if I do post anywhere guys, it'll probably be just me casually throwing stuff up on Twitter. If you're interested in following there. Ikewinger I I2I's there at the end if you're interested in following that stuff. I like to go on Twitter and post stuff and I probably still will do that, but not like all the video creation and content creation and getting involved deeply and stuff. So let me read your question one more time because I got derailed. Okay. Domagelli says, how do I respond to people who claim that it's better for abortion to be legal because abortion rates are reportedly higher in places where it's illegal? Also, enjoy your well earned break. This idea that abortion rates are higher. This is a piece of propaganda. I believe I'm convinced 100% is a piece of total propaganda. Imagine saying that. Well, let's flip the logic and see if they agree with it. Chicago has strict gun control laws, right? But other countries or other countries feels like other countries, other states have loose gun control laws and they have less shootings, they have less gun violence than Chicago does. So gun laws actually create gun violence. So the best way to stop gun violence is to remove the gun laws entirely. Now I know for a second conservatives might be like, yes, Mike, I love this. I'm using this argument for real. No, I don't recommend you use this argument for real. There's a different argument you can make about making gun laws in an environment where there's already a lot of guns means only that the criminals will have guns because only those who are not willing to obey the law will possess the guns. That's a different argument entirely. Go for it. Make the argument. But this argument of if we really want to prevent something, we should make it legal and we should pay for it. That is the craziest thing in the world. People could even on the surface believe this sort of logic is wild to me. It's just wild to Me. Oh, so how about where we want to avoid people not going to work? So what we're going to do is we're going to pay their wages whether they go to work or not. Because we know if we enable people to do something they'll not do makes no sense. The logic is insane. Also, there's other moral arguments that can be brought. And I'll come back to this in a second with my biggest response to it. But moral arguments can be brought. Like for instance, if something's illegal, the government has a moral responsibility to try to stop it, not hope it goes down. It's illegal because it's immoral. It's immoral because it's abortion. Abortion should be illegal because of the morality of the issue. Now if you say, oh, but it won't work, it won't work, I think you're blowing smoke. I don't trust you. I don't trust your judgment. I don't trust your wisdom on this issue at all. I think it's wild that you think that the number of abortions that have happened post Roe v. Wade is far, far higher per capita than the number that happened before Roe v. Wade. That's all I need to know. The number after, far higher per capita than the ones before. That's what I need to know. If we could draw back the clock and abortion was illegal the whole time and Roe v. Wade was never passed and it was always illegal. The number of humans alive today that you would know, that you would spend time with, whose kids you would hang out with, the number of children you'd have in the schools would all be far, far higher. If we had never legalized it in the first place. I don't see how anybody could dispute that. But let's talk about abortion statistics for a second. So I'll give an example. Roe v. Wade was recently overturned. After it was overturned, numbers of abortions in states, because then it moved to the states. So some states were like passing strict anti abortion laws. In those very states the numbers of abortions went up. That's true. That did happen. Why did it happen that in states where abortion laws were strict against abortion, did abortions go up? Doesn't that mean that like, California's abortion laws are better, New York's abortion laws are better? They actually reduce abortions? No, not at all. Here's what happened and here's what they don't tell you. The FDA passed and I'm looking into this. So I'm glad you asked the question. The FDA approved a generic version of the abortion pill that went out, that's cheap and that's easily distributable. And then opportunists who don't care about human life, reality, they started selling these abortion pills to people outside their own states. So let's say someone in California sells it to someone in a state where abortion is banned and they sell it through a phone call. No office visit, no medical follow up, no significant medical follow up, no real protection to make sure. How is this even being used? Is it even necessary? So we have now the situation where guys are buying abortion pills that kill a human being. They're buying them after making a phone call to somebody in another state like California. Then they ship that pill to the person and he drops it in the drink of his underage prostitute to get her to kill the baby or he forces her to take it. We're actually helping them do the prostitution with this. There's others where it's the woman who's doing it. We just recently had a case where a man, the question is, should he get a double murder charge? He spiked his girlfriend's drink. She was a few months, I think it might have been four months pregnant. He spiked her drink with an abortion pill, had her drink it. She lost the baby. And the question, and I think she may have died as well. I'm trying to remember now because I've seen a number of these cases recently. And then the question is, should he be charged with homicide? But here's the thing. How did he get it in the first place? Like, how do you get that? Like, I can't just get medical drugs that kill a living human being easily, right? No, no, you can't. And it's not because of the laws that were passed that restricted abortion in these states. It's because of the law that was passed that made it easier for other states to ship their abortifacent drugs into the states where abortion is illegal. So yeah, that's what's going on. But they're going to use this. Like it's evident. No, if you passed a law that this abortion pill was not allowed anymore, the abortions would drop down tremendously, instantaneously. They would drop down. So yeah, that's what we need. We need more laws, not less. More protection of human rights, not less. That's how I would respond to those arguments is that they're twisting statistics in order to stop you. And the truth is, most of the time when people offer these arguments, they actually want more abortions. Not all the time, but a lot of the Time, they're arguing to you, you should actually approve the legality of abortion because it will reduce abortions. But that person, they actually want more abortion. They want more people being able to abort their kids whenever they want to. That's their agenda. Does that not tell you that the argument itself is spurious? Don't murder. That's what the Bible says. Number five. Rosasaved by Grace says, hey, Mike. Hey, rosa. In Acts 15, the apostles only list four laws but exclude other moral laws. That is murder. Also. Later, Paul says, idol meat is okay. How then do I take this passage as a gentile believer? Yeah. So Acts 15. Let me just give you a quick rundown of what I think about that, and then we'll look at. What Paul says in other places. We'll talk about it. So the Jerusalem Council, this council, I won't read through the whole thing, but basically a group of apostles and stuff get together and they're going, hey, what do Gentiles have to do in relation to the Gospel? They get saved. Are they supposed to get circumcised? Do they have to obey the law? Are they supposed to do? Because the Mosaic Law is like a whole bunch of stuff. And it's not just moral laws. It's like ritual stuff and come to Jerusalem for Passover stuff and all this kind of thing. And so they have a debate about it, and the ruling comes down that they don't have to do it. Let me find where the ruling is. Therefore, my judgment is. And this is what they end up doing. James speaking here, that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them. So what's the trouble? The trouble would be asking them to fall under the Old Testament law. They're not under the law. They don't have to. Galatians, Paul talks about this in detail. They're not under the law. So we don't want to trouble them, but we should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled in from blood. Now this list of things, don't consume stuff that was polluted by idols, don't commit sexual sin and don't eat, know, enjoy what was strangled and from blood. These are like those last two in particular. I mean, one could be just like humanitarian, like, you don't that that's inhumane to do, that you're like, you're killing animals by strangling them. This is, you know, maybe related to specific pagan rituals. I Don't know. And blood. So how far reaching are these? I think these are all four very different things. So sexual immorality, that's purely a sin, things polluted by idols. Well, the context, it does depend on context. And this gets to what Paul says later, Paul later. Later on he goes, look, an idol is nothing. But if someone comes and sees you partaking in an idol's temple, what's that going to do to their hearts when they see a Christian in that visual involved in the food related to idolatry, it's going to make it look like you are participating with the idols. Even if you're thinking, this is nothing, it's just meat. And so he actually counsels them against doing that. Even though it could be permissible under a certain set of circumstances, they still should avoid it. When it comes to the complex situation where Paul talks about, if you go to the market and let's say you're buying meat, and the guy that owns the meat, he's a pagan. He worships. Whatever. Fill in the blank. Right. He worships at the goddess Athena at her altar. And he takes the meat and he offers all of his meat. He takes a little portion, he gives it to Athena, and he dedicates the meat that he sells, all of it. Every piece is dedicated to her. But Paul's solution to this problem is you still have to eat, right? So you go to the market and he says, don't ask them, was this offered to an idol? Because an idol is nothing. The issue is not the meat, whether it was offered to the idol or not. The issue is the manner of your participation in that. So if you buy the meat and you don't even know, you never asked, then there's no way in which you've consented to being part of an idolatrous practice, because you haven't even asked about it, you haven't been told about it. But if he's handing the meat to you and the guy goes, I offered this to Athena. Enjoy it, Christian. You leave it there. You don't eat it, because now it's like you're participating. So you get. It's the spiritual reality that matters, not just the meat. And that's the advice you get here in Acts 15. It's consistent. It's consistent with that. This advice is to do, I think, two things ultimately. One, to give the gentiles a very minimalistic set of requirements of what they're expected to do and to also create fellowship between them and the Jewish believers. Right? Because we're all Christians in Christ, but to maintain fellowship, don't be eating blood, things strangled, and things polluted by idols. So you guys are separating yourself from all signs of idolatry and also sexual sin. But it's not meant to be comprehensive. So you mentioned murder is not listed there. Yeah. They weren't actually trying to give Gentiles everything they need to know about following Jesus. They're just trying to talk about the intersection between Jews and Gentiles. That's what Acts 15 is about. So here's some things to do in order to fellowship with other believers, with Jewish and Gentile believers. Here's some minimal things to do as well as, of course, always abstain from sexual immorality. That is the constant plague of mankind still today, for all of us that we struggle with and must die to. I hope I answered your question. I'll read it one more time just in case I missed something that I should have, that I should have talked about. Question number five. In Acts 15, the apostles only list four laws, but exclude other moral laws, I.e. murder also. Later, Paul says idle meat is okay. How then do I take this passage as a Gentile? Yeah. So Paul, it's more complicated than him saying it's okay. He helps us understand the heart behind it. So this is a simple command. Paul gives us more explanation of why the heart. What's the heart behind it? How do you navigate complicated situations? Paul helps people with that. If people ask you simply stay away from idle food, if they have more time, you can give them Paul's more detailed answer, but otherwise, I think I answered it. All right. Number seven. If the Father already gave believers to Jesus, John 6:37. Why must Jesus still acknowledge them before the Father? Matthew 10:32. Isn't the Father already fully aware of who belongs to Christ? Interesting question. We're going to look at the passages as I drink from my teacup. Let's see, where were you? There's a whole wall of text in front of me. John 6:37. Jesus says, all that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me, I will never cast out. This is a really strong Calvinist text. I won't get into all that because that wasn't what your question was about. But hey, if the Father has given them to Jesus, then certainly the Father knows about them. That much of your logic I agree with entirely. Yes, if the Father has given us to Jesus, those of us who are followers of Christ, those who know him, those who come to know him, then surely he knows us, then we've got Matthew 10:32. It says, so everyone who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father who's in heaven. But whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who's in heaven. So the. The part, I think, where this might be throwing you off just a little bit. Is that in. Sorry, just one second. I don't. There's music playing in my house, and I think it's some. Some bot thing. I don't think there's anybody here. I think my wife will have to go do errands. But there's music playing. I'm like, what is that? Someone hacked my stuff. Anyways. It's just very distracting to my ears. Hopefully you don't hear it. Be copyright issues, actually, if you did. So the dilemma here, the confusion here, is thinking that when Jesus acknowledges you before the Father, he's telling the Father. Necessarily telling the Father something the Father doesn't know already. You should think more about it as a ceremonial acknowledgment. For instance, when the bride comes before the groom, she's veiled, she's not seen. Right. Then ceremonially, she lifts the veil so he can see her. Of course he knows what she looks like. This is not like a mystery. This is not something new that is known. It's a ceremonial thing. It has ceremonial weight and meaning, and it has. You know, that's what's going on there. And when the husband, or, excuse me, the father, he gives away the bride, her mother and I do. Or I give away the bride, depending on what you've done in that particular ceremony. That has already been decided and acknowledged, and it was already known. Right. Hopefully the guy went to the dad and said, I'd like permission. And the mom, like, permission to take your daughter's hand in marriage. So it's ceremonial. And this acknowledgment of the Son acknowledging the Father, that is acknowledging us before the Father, that is a ceremonial reality. Good. She says she can't hear it. I'm very glad to hear that, Sarah. Thanks. Can't hear the music. That's good. I hear it. Really surprisingly distracting. It's probably Brian Simmons doing it. Doing that somehow. Maybe he sent his special angel. Sorry, Special angel. There's a whole big thing about that. Anyways, I hope that answers your question. The acknowledgment before the Father is ceremonial. It is not, I believe, about memory or learning anything. All right, question number seven. This is coming in from Selly107. Says if the father. Wait, I skipped one, didn't I? What did I skip? I did Acts 15. Oh, I skipped two. Seven. I did seven instead of six. Sarah, I apologize. I switched six and seven. Okay, so this should have been six from Islagal or Isiagel or something. I don't know. Why does Exodus 6:3 seem to say that the patriarchs did not know the divine name when Genesis 26:16 records that they did? Yep. Some ink has been spilled on this dilemma before. You're definitely not the first to notice it. Let's first look at the. Actually, let's look at the Exodus passage first that you mentioned, Exodus 6. 3. And in this passage, it says, I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name, the Lord, I did not make myself known to them. All right, so are we to take this to mean they were not aware of the phrase, the word Yahweh or Yahweh or however you pronounce it? Because there is some debate on that. We don't know the vowels. We try to reconstruct the vowels. We have the consonants Yad, hey, vav, hey. In Hebrew, we know that Jehovah is one way people have said it, but Jehovah or Jehovah, it looks as though that may come from just the word Adonai, which means Lord. See, they didn't want to say the name of God anymore to just protect the sacred name. They stopped saying it. And so what is believed by many is that they took Adonai, which means Lord. How? Your New Testament, whenever it would have said Yahweh, it says Lord. Or even here in your English translation, it says Lord. Well, that's not actually Lord in the Hebrew. Right. It's God's name. It's Yahweh. So they took the word Lord, Adonai. And in Hebrew. And they. They took the vowels O, A. Right? Adonai, A, O, A. And they put it Yahovah. That's. I know that sounds weird, okay? But that's how they. They took the vowels of Adonai. And then they. That's one theory. So how to pronounce it? I don't know. I don't know. So above. Above my knowledge to know the answer to that question, I usually say Yahweh because it seems like that's what people think it is. But yeah. So that's the divine name. And he says, by my name, Yahweh or the Lord, I did not make myself known to them. So does that mean they didn't know the Name. When he says he didn't make himself known to them, does that mean they didn't know the name? In fact, when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had God appear to them in some way or another, does he appear to them and be like, I am God Almighty. That is my actual name. Is this very much like I am? Not only this is who I am, this is my name. And then nobody knew my name before. Okay, that's the dilemma here. When Abraham was 99 years old, it says in Genesis 17:1, the Lord appeared to Abraham and said to him, I am God Almighty, Walk before me and be blameless. That I may. Just a second. Oh my goodness. I don't know if you can hear it. It started playing Sweet Dreams are Made of these. It was getting louder. It was doing some like ethereal music before, but then it switched over. That is weird. I've never had that happen. Did I say something that triggered it? Maybe. And it hurt me. Go figure things. I don't think I'm plugging that thing back in. Okay, so he appears and he says, I'm God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless. So here he learns about God. He hears the phrase God Almighty as God self identifying thing. But then there's this dilemma. And you point this out in your question and the other verse that you brought up is 2816. Genesis 28:16. Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, surely Yahweh is in this place. And I did not know it. Now this is not the only time God has identified as Yahweh in Genesis, right? Not Exodus, not Exodus where we get that, but Genesis multiple times God is referred to as Yahweh. And here we have it on the lips of Jacob. Now there's a couple explanations for this that can be offered and I like to survey possible reconciliations. One of them is, and this is not my favorite, but one of them is, oh yeah, well, Jacob awoke and said this. But it's not a word for word quote, right? It's someone saying later on down the road going like. And then Jacob realized God was in this place. And they write as they're writing. They put Yahweh. Now in English, we have quotes and we have conventions about quotes, but they didn't have that back then. This is just saying Jacob said, surely the Lord's in this place. Surely Yahweh's in this place. Doesn't mean Jacob knew the name Yahweh. That's possible. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation. It would fit with the way in which they handle quoting people. You know, that it's not always word for word. Another explanation, though, that I don't know, I'm a little more inclined to, is that when God revealed himself as the Lord Almighty and then Yahweh, that Yahweh is just the way in which God is revealing himself is more expansive than it was to Abraham, more expansive and more personal than it was to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob for that matter. God is now redeeming a people who he's claiming to be his own. He's now fulfilling the promises that were made. So in my opinion, we're not learning a new name for God. We're learning new things about God that are associated with a particular name. Now, maybe that name was known, but you're learning it. So imagine a kid saying, when I was young, I knew my dad, but now that I'm grown, I know my father. And it's not as though they didn't know the words dad and father, but what they're using is the name to identify a different relational connection. I knew my dad. He's my dad, right? But now that I'm older, now that I'm like, dad, how do I fix this? Or what do I do with this crisis in my life? And he feels like he's knowing him as a father now in a different way. And you can use these names to attach to concepts about the person. So this is about God revealing more of himself. That's where I would lean. And you can give it some thought, see if you agree or not, and look up other people's opinions on this, too. And I like to survey multiple different people's ways of reconciling these kinds of issues. I find it very helpful. All right, let's see. Number eight. Ministry of Thought says, if we can infer slavery, abolition as outworking biblical principles, even though not commanded, why can't we similarly infer full female leadership? When is trajectory hermeneutics? Okay, when is it not? This is a great question. I like this question. So let me first talk about. We'll call it trajectory hermeneutics. And this is something that's very common in a lot of bad teaching, this kind of approach. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. It's just. It's a principle that's too easily abused. Typology is like this, too. This is why I have a rule with typology in the Old Testament. It's a beautiful thing. It's totally of God. It's very much of God. But you can't create new theology with your typology because it's too easy to construct convenient things. What we do is we stick to examples that are very well established. We don't turn into like people who are massaging the text. And we stick to what God has revealed, not what we want, we wish he had revealed. So no new theology. And the trajectory thing with slavery is pretty. It's not even a trajectory. It's pretty strong. It's stronger than a trajectory. So what we have is all people are of one blood. So there's an inherent equality in humankind. We have slavery coming about. It's like the oldest profession, so to speak. That or prostitution. But they're often the same thing. And we have it coming about almost instantly. Right? And it is never looked on favorably. It is never looked on as a good or positive thing. The only places people could look to try to find positivity about it is in the law of the Old Testament, because it regulates slavery and it discusses slavery, which is a reality that they all had to deal with. And by talking about it, regulating it, people interpret that as approval. I disagree. The actual first thing the Bible seems to say about it, that at least comes to my mind is my people are enslaved in Egypt. That's bad. I'm going to deliver them. Meaning that the introduction of the concept is, here are slaves. God will redeem and deliver from slavery. He will bring them liberty. He's going to set the captives free. That's like the major introduction to the topic in the Bible. I'm going to set you free. This is a bad thing to be. Even when the law is given and they then talk about those who are slaves. It said things like, don't mistreat the stranger. Remember you were a sojourner. Remember what it was like when you were in that class in Egypt, and treat people well, love them and care for them. God's whole thing, he doesn't want his people to be slaves. He doesn't want. He doesn't want. It's clearly a bad situation. It's not ideal, it's not good. The regulations of slavery in the Old Testament, I would say, made made lives better for slaves. Now, people will disagree with me all day long on that, and that will never stop. But I have looked at the texts, and that's very much my opinion about the texts. For example, you've got this teaching in the law that says if you beat your slave and you injure him, like his tooth comes out or something, which is not like oh, so you could break his jaw, but you put. And he's. And you're fine. But if his tooth comes out now, you're in trouble. No, obviously, this is like case law. It's like an example of the kind of thing that you do if this kind of thing happens. You break his arm, you break his leg, you cut off his toe, you knock his tooth out, he goes free. Now, some thought, well, that's just all he does is go free. And I'm like, wait a minute. That dude may owe you like a million dollars and be working that debt off for the rest of his life. And now because you've abused him, he goes free. That made their lives better. If they're alive, if they run away, if someone comes to you and they're a runaway slave, this is in Deuteronomy. You do not send them back to their master. Now take for instance, the Code of Hammurabi. At the same time, it says you give them a place to live near you, you actually help them out. Right. You give them refuge. But take the Code of Hammurabi. If you're caught with someone else's slave and you did not send that guy back to the master, you get punished. You're in trouble for that. So this took the situation. It showed it's not ideal. God doesn't want it for his people regulated it to reduce things like sex slavery. Yep. The Bible has regulations to curtail that kind of behavior, and I'm glad it did. Then we have the New Testament. Jesus comes and says, what? I've come to make you free. You're slaves to sin and I've come to set you free. These things are clearly not ideal. Paul says, if you're a slave and you can get free, get free and use it for the Lord. If you can't, then serve unto the Lord in your slavery. But it says slaves obey your masters. Yeah, yeah. It's not trying to start large scale rebellion, but it was trying to cause a transformation in the culture through transforming the individuals. So we see it all the time. We see man stealers are judged specifically by God. In the book of Revelation, they're punished right at the very end. They're slaughtered for being man stealers, which would have been for prostitution and other purposes. So it's a pretty clear trajectory. Right? That's like a. I don't even know if I call it a trajectory. It's like, this is not ideal. It's not what God wants. It's a highly abusive thing. It's regulated and limited. It's something that you should try to get free of if you can. And the Christian principles of love and caring changed the way in which anybody who had slaves would handle them if they continued to have them. I know that's not good enough for a lot of people, but I think that's pretty amazing. I think it's really amazing and it's really unique. And that Christian ethic did lead to the ending of slavery. That is what led to it historically. So do we have that trajectory with women in ministry? Okay, so the second part of your question is, why can't we similarly infer full female leadership? Okay. Do we have that trajectory in the New Testament regarding women in ministry and the Old and new? And the answer is a resounding no. It's just not there at all. Women's submission, like proper biblical. And I use the word. I know people don't like it. Don't use the word submission. Use the word like respect or like yielding or something else. But the Bible uses the word submission. So if I treat it like I'm allergic to it, I'm training people to be repulsed by scripture. I will not do that. The Bible does talk about submission as a good thing and a proper thing in its right way. It can be abusive, it can be manipulative, it can be bad. But at its core, the male female relationship does have a hierarchy in marriage. That's a biblical view. It's clear in the text. I did a two years project on this and I'll link it below my women in ministry research. It's all there. Even some groundbreaking stuff that we shared that had not been public before because I had to hire someone to translate papyri so we could check facts and stuff. And it is conclusive. Is there a trajectory? No. You have male and female. There's differences from the day of creation, from the moment of creation. There's differences between male and female that support this idea of the husband having a higher degree of leadership in the marriage. The woman's still a leader. She still has dominion over the earth. She still has capacity and capability. This is not to diminish her, as I'll be accused of doing. But by the time you get to the New Testament, we have affirmations. Even what we have is people think, here's trajectory. We've got Galatians. It says there's no male or female in Christ. Ah, see, it's true. We're breaking out of these gender distinctions. No, you're really not. That's as pertains to salvation. You're asking a question about cultural roles, not about salvation. There's no Jew, gentile, barbarian, Scythian, slave free, male, female, none of that in salvation. Right. But in church ministry there's absolutely a difference. And the requirements for elders exclude women. The specific behavior of elders. In 1 Timothy, it talks about this, that I don't allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. And this is in relation to the church, not in relation to like she's teaching a college class somewhere. But. But this is pretty significant and it's really strong. And it's coming late New Testament. There's no trajectory there. That's not a trajectory. The trajectory of seeing humans is valuable. That's not even a trajectory either, because it starts in the garden. Male and female are made in the image of God. Women are in God's very image. They're also co heirs with Christ. They're called kings and priests. Women too, Kings and priests, Right. Because in salvation there's no distinction. But when it comes to ministry, there are requirements for elders. The Bible reaffirms this. After all of these revelations are true, it's still firmly in place. So your options are pretend the Bible doesn't say it, which is what egalitarian scholars have done very, very routinely. Number two, a different option. And a different group of scholars have done this. Just say you reject the Bible. Right. A lot of egalitarian scholars say this too. I reject the New Testament's authority. I reject your version of inspiration. And I think it's just wrong here. Paul was a bigot because they recognized that he said what he said. Or you have another option, which is you just say it's clear there's no trajectory. This is just what the New Testament says. The trajectory argument, it has no grounding. It's a claim without evidence. And you can only piecemeal together pieces of scripture and ignore the ones you don't like to make it work. I say that very strongly, guys. I spent two years working on this and I put all my work available for you to see. I say it after having researched. When I was asked about this for a long time, for years, I wouldn't answer the question, can a woman be pastor? I didn't answer it. Not because I was afraid of people. I was afraid that my voice would influence a woman's life and I would be wrong. And I was scared of that. And I thought, what if there's arguments? I don't know. I know there's like egalitarian scholars that have great reputations and I Just haven't heard all the arguments. So I wanted to hear it first because I feel trepidation about the things I publicly teach. Well, I heard it all out, and now it was bunk. Go back to scripture on this, guys. Go back to Scripture. It's not only true that it says it, it's good. It's what's needed. It's what society needs. It's what your church needs. They need men in those leadership roles. They do. Women need men in those leadership roles. That's true. And it's good. All right, Chi 21, 21 says in Acts 16, verses 16 to 18, how. Why would the woman with an unclean spirit be able to correctly confirm the truth of what Paul is preaching before Paul commands the spirits to leave her? Why would the woman with unclean spirit be able to correctly confirm the truth of Paul before he. Okay, let's. Ooh, I like this question a lot. Okay, so let me talk about something I wanted to talk about. Anyways, this is the if you can't beat him, join them strategy of Satan. Acts 16:16. As we were going to the place of prayer, this is Paul and this is Luke speaking. And it's one of the we passages. It's kind of cool. If you go through Acts, you'll notice when he says we versus when he says they, and you can actually trace when Luke was present with them versus when he was off doing something else. He says, as we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune telling. Okay, I want to be clear here. In Scripture, there are those who do fortune telling that do it through an actual spirit of divination. Right? It's not just a gimmick. It's not just cold reading people. There's actually a demonic spirit that they're using, and they're getting real information about people. And they met someone like that. And who is it? It's a slave girl. It's a slave girl. Someone had bought some girl who had this capacity, this ability. They were using her. All right, so then she starts harassing Paul. She followed Paul and us, crying out, these men are servants of the most high God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation. Sounds like good news. You know, it's kind of like you'd like it, right? This woman, she's like these men. They're proclaiming to you the way of salvation. They're servants of God. And she kept doing this for many days. Now, this Is to me, the biggest puzzle in this passage is why many days, like, why didn't Paul cast that demon out day one? But Paul having become greatly annoyed, that's just encouraging to me that Paul got really annoyed, turned, and said to the spirit, I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out that very hour. Doesn't imply that the woman wanted it or asked for it or anything. He's just commanded, boom, get out of her. It came out that very hour. But when the owner saw that their hope of gain was gone because they can't make no money off of a girl that doesn't have that spirit of divination, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. And of course, they start trying to attack Paul and all this. But we're focused on this section right here. How on earth did a woman who has basically a demon or an evil spirit of some kind, she has an evil spirit. How does she come out? With this statement here that's highlighted on your screen. Or to put it the way Kai put it, how or why would the woman with an unclean spirit be able to correctly confirm the truth of what Paul is preaching? Before Paul commands the spirit to leave her, let's talk these two questions. How and why. How? Well, the how's easy, right? The evil spirits know more about the truth than random people walking down the street. Whether they're willing to say it out loud or not, they know that these men are servants of the most high God or they see angelic things. They know the truth about Christ. They know. They know. They know these guys are legit. They know they're real. Kind of like in Acts, the seven sons of Sceva, right? Where he's like, paul, I know. Jesus, I know. Actually, I think he said, jesus, I know. And Paul, I know, but. But who are you? And they beat him up. They know. So they have that inside information. But the why is the more interesting question, right? Like, why would a demon or an evil spirit. I'm not saying it had to be a demon. I don't know. Some stuff I wonder about, right? Whether it's demon or evil spirit, Probably a demon. I don't know. So the spirit gets cast out. But why would the spirit say out loud two of the crowds? These men serve the most high God and they proclaim the way of salvation. The only thing I can think is a, the girl had this knowledge from the demon or whoever, and she's speaking this demonic information because she's carrying It. And she's like, psychologically all kinds of damaged. She's walking around. Maybe there's a part of her that's even drawn to Paul, and so she's trying to chase after him even if the demon doesn't want her to. Maybe there's this part of her is her crying out for help, and she just follows them around all day yelling this stuff whenever she sees them, and she calls out until he casts it out of her. Is that indicated in the text? Okay, you might grab onto that. Here's a good lesson for us in Bible study. You may grab onto that and go, I like that. That doesn't make it true, guys. I like it, too. That sounds nice. And it would preach. Well. Like, she's just, you know, she's totally demonically oppressed. But, man, she wants God. So she's drawn to. To the Apostle Paul, and she's following him. She's saying the only thing she can say that she knows because of her demonic source. Servants of the most high God, they proclaim the way of salvation. But I don't think that's the answer. I think there's a little hint in the text that gives us a different answer. She does not say, oh, servant of the most high God, show me the way of salvation. She does not say that to them, does she? There's no indication of appeal for personal help. In fact, she's not even talking to Paul. She's speaking to the audience. These men, right. Third person, not, hey, you guys, these men. Then she says, they proclaim to you the way of salvation. So she's speaking to the audience there in the city. She wants them to hear her saying, or the demon does, saying, these guys are servants of God. What benefit would this have for her? Well, it would potentially install her as a John the Baptist figure in that local city, pointing people to them and then gaining authority on her own. So now people who are Christians who are already struggling with trying to get out of paganism, they look at her and they're like, what else do you know? Do you have a word for me? You were the one that told me that Paul was a servant of the most High God. And now here you are setting up with your little booth, doing your thing and answering questions and doing readings on people. This was, I think my theory is a demonic attempt at syncretism, where you merge Christianity with some other false belief system. And that is why it annoyed Paul. And that is, in my opinion, why Paul cast that spirit out and was like, we're not going to allow this to happen because on one end it's positive she's testifying to the truth. But what role is she putting herself in in the local church as she does that, that's where it gets dangerous. Kind of like when celebrities get saved, they're testifying the truth of Christ and we're excited about it, but we have to care about what role we're putting them in in our local churches or in our lives as Christians. You know, Russell Brand gets saved and I'm like, I'm like he has in my mind. I'm glad. I don't know if he really got saved. Guys, I haven't followed Russell Brand, so this is just a random example off the top of my head. But I'm not going to prop him up in some high spiritual place in my life and I hope others don't in their lives either. If he somehow points people to Jesus, that's good. But you get concerned about how he might be installed as a new. And sometimes when you're new, you're unstable, you're still settling. You don't really know where you're going to land on certain things. And that's why you have people tried and tested before they're in leadership. So just an example of how it's the same sort of dynamic we worry about there. All right, let's go to the next question. Number 10. The last question of the last stream for three months. Sorry some of you are bummed about this. Be excited for me. I have 1200 something videos. Go watch the Jesus in the Old Testament series, the Evidence for the Bible series, the. The Women in Ministry series. That'll keep you busy for quite a while. Go watch the Gospel of Mark series. Spent a year teaching through Mark. It was probably my favorite verse by verse study I've done online because of the way, the way in which it was done. I incorporated really neat insights. Not my insights necessarily, but really wonderful, awesome stuff is in that series. It's really cool, man. Check out the Gospel of Mark. There's tons and tons of stuff. I got 10 years worth of over 10 years worth of work for you to check out. So last question and then I'll show you guys a Brian Simmons video. How do I actually accept God's love? Wow. This one's anonymous. How do I actually accept God's love? I know the Bible says he loves me, but how do I accept and receive it with confidence? Well, let me tell you a story that may or may not help. I hope it helps. I really do. It's My story. So for whatever reason, when I first became a Christian as a teenager, as I was 12, 13, when I first heard the gospel and believed it, I would fail. I would sin as I still do, and then I would feel far from God. And it would be like days, weeks of me feeling that way. And then I would hear a study, a message, a worship song that somehow reaffirmed God's love for me. I felt like it was the Lord personally reaffirming his love for me in that moment that when that person said that to me or when that message came from the pastor as he was sharing. And I thought, oh, maybe he looked right at me as he said something. And I thought, yes, Lord, you do love me. And I felt at peace again. And I felt forgiven. And I felt like I was right with God. And so I went on this yo, yo, just like bungee jump of the love of God, where I'm, like, close to God and then down and then up and feel close and then down and you feel up and close and you're down. And I continually would look for these moments where God would reaffirm his love for me and that then I could believe again that he still loved me and cared for me. So what changed in my life? What made it so I was no longer looking for special moments, special things where God would reveal something to me. God would speak to me. God would send me a message somehow. What changed is scripture. I did two things that changed it for me. The first one is I read the Bible. I actually studied it myself and tried to really learn it. Now, I wasn't very good at it at first. It took a while, but I tried to actually read it and really think about it. And doing that was key. Now, once I've done that, I've got these texts that tell me about God's love, that teach me about what God thinks. I don't have to wonder or go off my feelings. I have it right here in black and white. I know what God thinks. I know God loves me. I know Jesus died on the cross for me. I know it. And the second thing I did was I just made a decision to trust that. It was a decision. It was a choice I made. And I still make it where I say, I'm going to believe you, Lord. I'm going to believe you. You say that you loved me and gave your son for me. I know that when Jesus was on the cross, God, you knew everything I would ever do. You knew me. And every sin I would ever commit and every failure I'd ever have in my life. You knew me completely, and you still did that for me. And so I don't need to wait on you to tell me you love me again. I don't need to wait on you to reveal in a special way, from my heart. In fact, me doing that has been a result of my lack of faith, my lack of trust in you. So you can think of it as an analogy. Imagine if your wife, let's say you're a guy, and your wife doesn't think you love her. So you tell her, I love you, and she feels assured, and then she doesn't feel like you love her again a month later. And you're like, honey, I do love you. I mean, I've always loved you. I've loved you constantly, every day. And then you kind of talk her into believing that you love her, and you made her feel better than now. She's going through an anxiety and a crisis, and it is a real crisis, and it's really unpleasant for her because she keeps thinking, I don't think he loves me. And that's terrifying to think that. But in this scenario, you do love her, and you've loved her constantly and continually throughout the whole time. And so from your perspective, you're like, why doesn't she believe me? Haven't I demonstrated my love enough? Haven't I showed her enough? Maybe you haven't. We're fallible humans. Maybe I haven't. But hasn't God hasn't. God showed you his love? God so loved the world that he gave his own son. And you're like, wait a minute. But that's the world, not me. Mike, do you think God doesn't know who you are? God so loved you, he gave his own son that if you believe in him, you could be saved and forgiven. He took your sins upon himself on the cross. He made you in his image. He knit you together in your mother's womb. I mean, you already know God loves you. You just have to believe it, study the scripture, choose to trust it. And you will not doubt God's love for you. You go through hard times, but you also know he promised he'll work even all that stuff together for good. God's love for you. His hand is outstretched. His heart is poured out on the cross. He loves you. There's no doubt about it. There's no doubt about it. He loves you. It's just getting yourself to the place where you believe it and go to the Word, go to the things that you know haven't changed. And may God help all of us to just move more and more to the place where we trust what he says and not just need confirmation all the time because it's a much healthier place to be. So I don't doubt God's love for me. I don't doubt it. Even when I failed, I still know that he loves me. Doesn't mean that I have an excuse or that my failures or sins are okay. But I don't doubt that he loves me. I stand in the same grace that I was saved in, which is really pretty cool. Pretty cool to stand that way. Okay, listen, this is going to be number 11, and number 11 is. I just wanted to show you guys something Brian Simmons said. Let's see, which one will I use? Christology. Let's look at his Christology. I'm looking at a folder here with a bunch of files in it and videos. Let me sort view. You'll have to give me a minute if you guys want to sign off. God bless you. I'll see you in three months. Here's one Christology in a prophecy about Long island that didn't, it seems, come to pass. Oh, here's a good one. All right, I'm gonna put it, pull it in, import it, and I'll play it for you guys. I should put my. My ears in so I could hear it too. This is the kind of stuff he says. I just. Here, I'm gonna play more than one. I'm gonna pull a few in real quick here. Here were 200% people. I'll pull that one. This is one about being brought into the triune essence. Ooh. This is about the next thing. Is God upgrading. You remember how I said the manifest sons of God stuff? So here's a few clips that will show you some more about who he is, what he teaches.

David Fish

And if you read the Song of Songs, you'll know that. My sister, my bride. What is the word sister mean in the Hebrew? It means my equal.

Mike Winger

That's not true.

David Fish

It doesn't mean that Jesus will have an equal partner. If the Father tells us not to marry and get an unequal yoke, is he going to let his own son have an unequal yoke? How he's going to have an equal partner.

Mike Winger

Right? So his. Because his theology about who you are is. It's like our deification. I say like our diva. I use that word, like, importantly here because he's sort of. You'll see, he tries to, like, skate as close to the line of heresy as possible. It Seems. Here's another one. This is about how we're equal to Jesus.

David Fish

Don't limit the power of the blood of Jesus to make you a look alike. Equal to the Son of God. I'm telling you, he's going to have an equal partner. An equal bride. A radiant bride is in his future. And he's not coming back until the bride is ready.

Mike Winger

Right? Because his second coming is us becoming that equal bride. This is the guy, right? Brian Simmons. Bill Johnson says the best thing to happen to Bible translation. One of the best things to happen to Bible translation in his lifetime was his fake work. Here's another one.

David Fish

That blood, the sacred blood of Jesus releases God, life, God, nature, God DNA. I don't care how you interpret it. The 200% people are coming. God and man mingled as one. The mingling place, the beautiful realm where two become one. The divine union of God and man. Jesus as the prototype. And God loves that prototype so much, he's going to fill Long island with people just like Christ.

Mike Winger

Did you catch that? This is actually a prophecy about the future. Not even about your current condition as a Christian. You aren't fully 200% yet. You will be. This is the manifest sons of God doctrine. This is non Christian theology that has entered into the charismatic world through guys like Brian Simmons, Bob Jones, William Branham, who's lifted up like he's something he never was and it's a problem. So yeah, 200%. You know, I've only ever heard people refer to Jesus that way. Although it's a clumsy way to talk because nobody's 200%. That doesn't make any sense. But he's truly God, truly man. Right? He's saying you're truly God, truly man. Isn't he? Isn't that what that means? Let me play it again. Is this not the Christology of Jesus, but applied to you as if you were God and man?

David Fish

That blood, the sacred blood of Jesus releases God, life, God, nature, God DNA. I don't care how you interpret it. The 200% people are coming. God and man mingled as one. The mingling place. The beautiful realm where two become one. The divine union of God and man. Jesus as the prototype. And God loves that prototype so much, he's going to fill Long island with people just like Christ.

Mike Winger

So Jesus is the prototype. What is Jesus? He is man and he is God. And you're going to be just like Jesus. Now I think that sounds like heresy. I think that sounds like actual heresy.

David Fish

You know, you probably heard it before. You know where it says God. God says, I won't share my glory with another. I will not share my glory with another. You're not another. You're one with him. You are one with the three in one. How does it feel to be included now in the triune essence of God Almighty? You have been blended into the triune God. We are one with the three in one.

Mike Winger

It just is heresy. Okay, Brian Simmons, based on these teachings here, he is a heretic. So go read his special Bible translation that comes from texts that don't exist, where he didn't actually translate and he actually stole from other people's work, it looks like. And he's got special new revelations that are coming next to a church near you. Here, in fact is according to him in future prophecy, what's going to happen next on God's timetable is an upgraded version of you. That's right. Your current version of Christian is not enough. There's something God's going to do that's bigger and better because it's the latter. Rain manifest sons of God. It's that. It's that kind of overlapping stuff.

David Fish

God's next thing on his timetable is an upgraded version of you.

Mike Winger

Bleh. Yeah, so, yeah, so watch for the minor prophets. That video is going to be coming out soon, and you guys can check it out. It's super long. It's hours long because there's tons of evidence. And I mean, it's a big deal. It's a big deal. We are genuinely wondering if Brian or his publisher are going to get sued because of the stuff that they've done. I'm not a lawyer. In my opinion, I'm like, this is pretty profound. The amount of copy pasting that was going on with his work and that on top of everything else, I. I say shame on the leaders who allow this guy. No, didn't just allow him. Helped him get away with it. He has now got to be a multimillionaire easily from all the sales he's done, because everything's cha ching, cha ching, cha Ching courses and videos. And every time he translated a new book. Oh, Ephesians is done. Let's sell it by itself. Oh, John's done. Let's sell it by itself. Oh, now let's cluster the Gospels together. Oh, let's cluster Paul's letters. Oh, now let's do the New Testament. Oh, now let's do Genesis. Just sell it by itself. He's been selling like crazy. So, yeah, very lucrative stuff. Very, very lucrative lucre. All right, that's about it. Guys, I'm taking my break again. There's a small chance I'll have one more video that's long, that's on my channel. Small chance. Otherwise I'm just going to be peace out for three months. And I appreciate your prayers, just that I would just get not only re energized and refocused, but I'm writing a book during that time and I want it to be of true benefit to you guys and a true blessing to others in a way that is going to really. Be life lasting, lifelong benefits. It's not about COVID up culture. It's not about that kind of stuff. It won't be about any of those things. But I won't share more for now. Yeah, bad guys, I'm going to give you the summer off. Giving you guys the summer off. But I will say watch for minor profits. Watch. There's a few channels I link below and I may add more to it. Ron Cancer Wake up and win Blaze. For these are a few of the people and there's others that are trying to continue just creating a godly kind of accountability, the proper kind of accountability. Not just like, you know, tmz. I'm being accused of tmz, you know, Christian TMZ stuff. And that's just slander for no reason, not that kind of stuff. These are people who care about the body of Christ, who love the Lord and who want to help victims and help bring proper accountability. And they're doing a good work. So I will link their stuff down below some things for you guys to check out and otherwise let's pray. Father God, thank you for the truth of your word that it endures. That in the chaos that is church history, you've always had that thread of the work of God and the move of the Spirit and revivals and actual salvations and evangelism. We pray for more of that. We thank you that the church is under your control ultimately and your will is being done. Even in the chaos that we experience. We pray that you would bring real revival and transformation into not only the Charismatic church, but just interchurches. That this movement that's really started as these exposures have come out, that it really is a movement. I believe in the church, that it would continue and it would grow and that there will be repentance and there would be change and then there would be. We pray evangelism and discipleship and the authentic work of God in churches in beautiful, beautiful ways. Lord, we pray that you'd be honored and glorified in our lives. And I ask along with whoever agrees with me here, Lord, that you give me wisdom and skill as I write a book that would benefit the body and the rest and focus. I need to have the vision for this ministry moving forward. In Jesus name, Amen. Amen. Sa.