church has decided to have two different services, vexed and non vexed. I love my pastors, but i disagree with this approach. And i see it as devisive? Is this something i should leave the church over? I wouldn't think jesus would ever be for this option. Anna, first i'll say, im, i, i i hesitate to try to be the person who's answering these kinds of questions for for other people. Im, not that there's nothing i might offer that might help you, but, but i want you to understand my hesitation, because i want you to, i want us all to slow our role. Not that you're not ok, you just ask the question of it. I'm speaking here to the whole audience who's listening. Im, we should, we should be slow when we're contemplating things like just leaving a church. Not that you never should, or not that you're glued to the church you attend for the rest of your life. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying it should be a decision you make slowly with wisdom, and then you seek to do it in the least harmful way possible, unless it's great heresy being taught, in which case you openly try to bring as many people with you as you can for their own sakes, because you love god first and love your neighbours yourself. But what i've noticed as a pastor who's seen different church services and theway they're handling things. I've seen the church where everyone's told, whear a mask? And i've seen the pastors go, hagis, i know a lot of you don't agree with this, and i'm sorry. We're just, we know, we've prayed about it as elder bor, we're goin, we're goin to ask everyone where mass that's what the mandate is, and we're seeking to submit to government. I've seen others who think they have christian principles for saying, we're not going owear masks. And then you, you go to that church, and if you are wearing one, right? And i'm just using masks as an example, not the vaccene, that you actually feel, i'm uncomfortable, right? Like you feel like you are violating sort of some group agreement that's going on here. And so what i see when i zoom back, being some one who doesn't really fully understand all these issues, when it comes to, say, the mask issue, when i see, when i pull back a little bit, what i see isa pastors trying to figure out how to hold the church together, and hopefully not being arrogant and rude asty as they try to lead other people. Im, but theye's a lot of em trying to hold people together. And when, if, if they heard their congregation talking about leaving or staying over some of these issues, it would just break their hearts, hopefully. And that's the bigger concern of my heart. Im, i would not suggest leaving a church because they split a church into vaxton nonva services. I don't necessarily agree, but i also don't disagree so strongly that i think you should, like, you know, leave the church. Maybe there's other reasons why you would consider that, but i don't think i would go down that road. What what im in to guess is happening, trying to be gracious to the leadership, is that they just don't know how to hold the groups together in the church. If they require vaccines, they feel they're going to divide the church. If they don't, they feel they're also going to divide the church. And so they try to create a space for like people to come to the service of their choosing, so that at least for this difficult season, they're not ripping the church. So they may actually be an attempt at unity. And i wouldnt want to acknowledge that. M, you could ask your pastors what they're thinking there. This is a tough thing. Andi, what i'm reminded of. I'll share the scripture with you. Oh, by the way, i didn't give you guys the verse first, john four eight, where it says, god is love, and it implies that we need to be loving too. But let me, let me share with you guys another verse. Amoin to find it real quick. Clackety clack. Ok. This is ephesians four three. Rm, let's just read this as we think about how we interact on these issues. And the hypothesisis, let's say that your church is handling some of the stuff wrongly. Keep this in mind as you're working through that. I therefore, a prisoner of the lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling which you've which you hve been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, ri eause there is one body, there is one spirit. So when when we read this, i think masks and vaccines are secondary issues as it pertains to o the essentials of the christian faith. Imani be eager to maintain the unity of the spirit on these topics as much as possible, even if i have ntformed disagreement with somebody else. The spirit provides the unity, and us as christians, it's our calling to maintain it, maintain and to be eager to in other words, it's like a priority your your eagerness in your heart to keep that unity this. This is a word for all of us, an encouragement for all of us. Thank you for the question. Thinks, for the opportunity, give me a chance to talk about that. Pepper petunia has a question. Why isn't the holy ghost mentioned in any of the instances in revelation when praise is being given to the father and the lamb, if he's to be worshipped as separate? For example, revelation five 13. Ell, let's look at your verse first, revelation five 13, and then i'll tackle that question. And i heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb, be blessing and honour and glory and might for ever and ever. A, ok. So we have it explicit worship here at revelation. There has been, thereh's been actually a song, i belive, its in chapter four, there is a song, a let me see to the ther. And then in chapter its, its it's a song to god, which is, we would, i think, is sort of leaning towards emphasizing the father. And then there's another song, right? Holy as the lord god almighty, who was and isn't is to come and right? And he's given credit, worthiness and credit for creating all things. A, now, in chapter five, what we have is a song the lamb andand ther. The lamb is the one who can take the scroll and who basely hes redeemed mankind. And so he has worthiness in relation to the cross. So we have god, god's worth in relation to his nature and creation. And then jesus his worth, worthiness of worship in relation, specifically, not that he didn't create, because he did. The bible affirms that a, his is in relationip though to his death. He was slain, and he ransomed us to god and made us kings and priests to god. Then you have, like the summary, hay, worthy is the lamb who is slain am and then you have both of them together. To him who sits on the throne and to the lamb, be blessing and honourn, glory and might for ever and ever. Now, first off, i would say that him who sits on the throne should be seen as emphasizing the father, but not totally pendent of the son or the spirit, because they are all active in scripture with different qualitiesm also, the worship of the son or of the father, or even worship directed to the spirit, i think, is glorifying to all of the trinity at all times. And so there's an implication of this. In john five, it's that he who honours the son honours honours the father who sent him. Or again in saint mark, where jesus says that if you blaspheme the spirit, right? That'll not be forgiven. Whereas you knowou you e who is who is the final, the final like sent one, so to speak, evangelizing the world. And the implication here is that there's the inner relationship of the father, son and holy spirit, such that you don't have to worry about, as i think your question stated, separating rit te the the father the son and the spirit. So, pepper, what i n to say is this last part of your your your question, why isn't the holy ghost mentioned in any of the instances in revelation when praise is being given to the father and the lamb? If he is to be worshipped as separate, but we don't need to worship him as separate, is what i'm suggesting, that that might be a misunderstanding. You know, when you honor the son, you honor the father who sent him. When you respond to the holy spirit, you respond to the father. When you, when you believe in the son, you're responding to the holy spirit as well. That there is this interrelated nature of the worship of god. But i will say this, i think you are on to something in that the emphasis in scripture is the worship of the father and the son, not directly, not explicitly, as much the worship of the spirit. Not that you can never worship holy spirit, right? He's god. But i'm just suggesting the emphasis is not there. And perhaps the reason is this the the method of prayer. Jesus says, you know, don'thes not. Don't pray to me. He says, pray not that you can't pray to jesus. I've talked out that elsewhere. But pray to the father in the name of the son. And you're going to pray in the spirit, meaning that there's sense in which i my prayer, which worship is part of prayer, is energized by the holy spirit. My relationship with the holy spirit is whats enabling me to have worship pleasing to god. I pray through the son because he's the mediator between god and man. Heis the one who i connects me to god. And so i am right with god because of the grace of christ that constantly covers me, so i can worship him. And then i direct my worship, my my praise, more generally to the father, not explicitly, m but there there seems to be this sort of, like, if you were to visualize this in a crude way, the father in heaven, the son mediating between us and the father, and the spirit indwelling us and in our midst. There's overlap in all those things. But when you think about it that way, this is why worship, when expressed, it's expressed towards god, because we reach to sort of the farthest point to indicate our complete connection with god. Maybe that' ome way to put it. Anyway, i hoped at i didn't make you more confused. Im. We wanted the ext question. Ben v has a question. Why does paul mention janis and jambres in second timothy as being part of the exodus story when they weren't? Did he have a different exodus? Is he referring to an extra biblical book so authoritatively? All right, let's look at the passage am when we find the actual verse here. All right, second timothy, three eight. And i'll back up just a little but here. This is paul talking about false teachers and some of their tendencies. He goes forward, among them are those who creep into households, capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions. No, paul's not saying all women are weak. He's saying that these false teachers specifically target weak women, right? They're those who are often on their own and ll this other stuff. So this isn't sexism, although those who whod assume it is aren't gong to listen to mea such as the modern day i burdened with sin and laid astray by various passions, always learning and never able to come to arrive at the knowledge of truth. Then he offers a comparison between these false teachers and people from moses his time. Just as janes and jambres opposed moses, so these men also oppose the truth. So thre's the parallel. Now, janes and jambres, according to, like, extra biblical accounts, are the names of two of pharaoh's ma. This is when, like, moses throws, you know, his snake down, hits his staff down, and turns into a snake. And then through their whatever machinations, whatever the skills they had, or spiritual contact with e nemy, the enemy they had, they throw id on their staff, and they also turne into serpents, and then mosess serpent eats theirs. O caseso. This is demonstrating that there, yes, there is power in this false a religious system, but it's trumped by the power of the true god. I think the the lesson in exodus in many ways. But, but janeson jambrys, the names are never mentioned in the book of exodus. So you're likewell, where does it come from? And i'm tring to member which which book they actually come from. Right now it escapes me off the top of my head, but it comes from an extra biblical text the jews did not think was scripturednd the christian church has not thought it was scripture. And so the options are openk, the firsthing i want to do is i want to acknowledge the scarcity of data in the text when when i ony think biblically, that means i don't want to assume too much write. So he just calls them janis and jambries. Everything else here, they opposed moses is just right from exodus, right? We know about the opposition. We know about the interaction that i described, the staffs and snakes and stuff. M the names are the only thing that is not in the text in exodus. And so our options are a, let's survey our options. D, can do this when we, when we encounter a text and we're not sure what to think about it. Janis and jamburys are their real names, and their real names are preserved in these extra biblical texts. Let's thatthat's the case. Should i then think those because he uses janeson jamries, because paul is then affirming these ex this extra biblical text is right about this one issue. Should i then affirm that that is scripture? Well, no, scripture doesn't tend to do that. Like the books of first and second kings, they refer to extra biblical histories, right? The books are the record of the war. They refer to things like this, but not in a way that makes those things scripture. And we don't have any sort of anxt in the new testament about like, where are these missing books? Nothing like that. So yet, they can refer to these things without them being scripture. Another option is that janesand jambrs are just locally known as the names that the jews currently have for those unknown guys, you understand, like maha. We don't know their real names, but we call them janesan jambrs, and everybody around us knows them by those names, even if they weren't their names originally. Now, this would be especially easy to do in the jewish culture of the time, where often people had many names, multiple names, names. They have a jewish name, they have a greek name, they have a nickname, because there's too many people named peter, so we'll call him simon peter. So this is not a stretch at all to suggest that these are just the names known by paul's contemporaries. So rather than saying those of pharaoh who had opposed moses, he uses the names that the people have for them, meaning it could be our name for them in the first century, but not necessarily their original names in the book of exodus. I'm open to that as well. I don't think the scripture pushes us towards either of those conclusions. But i think the easiest one is, these are the names we them by all igt, let's go to the next question. This is question number five, and weav we have got all 20 questions for to day. We're loaded up, and i'l men to work through them one by one. And do i look a little orange to day? Do you guys? Oh, and that reminds me, don't ask, don't ask me why that reminds me. I have an announcement for you guys. If you happen to want to attend a conference somebody speaking at in february, it is coming up, and it's going to be a um an apologetic conference. Ig to be there. Sha mac dowel's going to be therea natasha crane and and some others. Am and w'm just looking for the link to it so i can put it in the live chat right now. And this will be posted on my u two chanel least, my my talk will be posted on the two channel. And a cuana. I do there for free. You gess we'e able to have that. And let mejs e link post it in the live chat. This is the link. It's in palm springs. And, oh, it's giveme, give me one of those links. That's like 17 thousand letters long. Yes, yes. Facesbook, follow the link. Anyway, i'll get you a shorter one. Am, wy, that's why is the link so long. M, we try this one now. There we go. It's only a hundred and 80 seveneter. Anyway, the link is called, the conference is caled ha, battle for the next generation. It's micha mc dowl, craig hayson, natasha crane a linege garrison and john ren renheimer, or reinheimer, i'm not sure i pronounced his last name. Sorry about that, john.