January 11th, 2026 Yeshuan Fireside

LIVE CALL IN!: Yeshuan Sunday Firesides with Shawn McCraney and Delaney McCraney Norris

Transcripts:
Hey everybody this is Sean and Delaney is at the helm behind the scenes working on some things we’ve had a lot of technical issues today things are hitting us hard in the realm of the unexplainable, but she’s fighting the hard battle to get stuff right. And so I just bear with us.
Thanks for joining us here on this Sunday afternoon of our first episode of Fireside. And we want to take your calls. We want to field your questions if there are any calls or questions. And you can call us at 220-222-4686. That is the beautiful angelic voice echoed by the gruffy old man. Listen, want to let you know that Tuesday night, Heart of the Matter Epiphany is having episode two.
We hope you’re able to tune in to Heart of the Matter Epiphany episode one. But episode two is going to really open it up. We’re calling it Arc Steady, the most advanced fair explanation of Mormonism that you’ve never heard. And Delaney and I are taking a new approach to Heart of the Matter. We realize that it’s not as feisty and jam-packed with information, but we figure in this age, this next age of the Spirit of Christ, we are going to follow the spirit and we’re going to work things out between us without a lot of preparation.
In fact, without any preparation and even without notes. Hello, Delaney. Hello. Welcome. If you’re new here, we are starting to stream across different channels. It’s going to be built up over the next few weeks to be able to call in in many different ways but we’re calling these firesides now we were doing these on Thursdays it was a call-in show we’re trying to gear it more toward discussion so that you’ll be able to see the chat going across all the different platforms.
And then also like video call in or join us with your face as well as with your voice on the phone or you can text. So right now, though, you can just chat in whatever respective platform you’re from. You can send in questions. you’re from you can send in questions you can text us at 220-222-4686 or you can call that number as well we’re from yeshuans and we just hard launched yeshuans on the heart of the matter show look up part of the matter with sean mccraney and you’ll get a sense of what we’ve done.
There’s a lot going on. There really is a lot. But this is a new time. Most people aren’t used to this time and it’s going to take some momentum building to get people to be joining in at two on Sundays. That’s right. We’re going to talk about yes, your ones and how we differ from all other expressions of the faith, which we mean the Christian faith, but really we mean faith in general.
Yeshuans believe that Christ fulfilled everything in and through what we see as his life, in and through what we see as his life, death, resurrection, ascension, return, to take his bride back in that day, that the biblical narrative is absolutely materially fulfilled, and that we have been living in an age where people have been practicing brick-and-mortar religion errantly, thinking that it’s not fulfilled, and thinking that Satan is still stealing people to the eternal fires of hell, that Christ is coming back to rescue us all, and a number of other things that we teach as not really biblical.
However, one thing that makes Yeshua’s distinct is we actually openly, readily accept everybody’s personal views about God, faith, religion, love, and we just essentially stand on ideas of faith and love wherever they may be coming from. How do we justify that? of faith and love wherever they may be coming from. How do we justify that? Because we believe that Christ having the victory, he has returned the human race to God.
God has been reconciled to the world. Christ is all in all inside of everybody. And we have returned to the Garden of Eden state now, spiritually choosing how to live by our own knowledge from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or by the tree of life. What’s happening in the realm of the internet Delaney? There’s a lot.
So we have an app called Yeshuans. If you get it from the Apple store, it’s currently down right now but that will be fixed talking about technical issues uh freaking demons are in this thing just kidding we don’t believe in demons just kidding well boy that’s a whole conversation really yeah uh sorry that was a loaded joke but but we have an app you can go to yeshuans.
faith and learn all about us but there’s forums in there people submitting stuff there’s an AI chatbot that scours our decades of content and there’s a lot of questions from there too that I’d love to actually focus on today while there’s nobody in the chat because we change times and no one knows we’re doing this right now oh we miss you guys we love you chatters um but all right a lot of comments a lot of questions from over the past couple weeks that we can address so let’s just go backward what’s what is Sean’s view on LGBTQ um my view on LGBTQIA
my view is we live in a fallen world that every element of humanity is fallen and that lgbtq is no exception but neither are lustful heterosexual males females uh people who are mean people who gossip people who are stingy people who are violent all of it is in the same box. So I just don’t distinguish between any of those things.
I think we’re all in the human realm. And God so loved the world, he gave his son to pay for, take care of our fallen nature. And we’re just left now with deciding how we want to live by faith and love or by our own self-will that is my view of lgbtqia it’s my cue of my view of people who have sex dressed up as animals it’s my view of alcoholics and heroin addicts and prostitutes and proud business owners who capitalize on unsuspecting souls. It’s my view of religion. It’s my view of this world. All right. What type of people
will experience God’s judgment when they die? God’s judgment was taken care of, uh, because of his son dying on the cross and his wrath was poured out upon the nation of Israel who rejected his son and put his son to death. So the wrath of God does not rest upon anybody at all when they die. However, his judgment is going to be based meritoriously.
And it’s those who elected to pursue him in faith and try to love versus those who don’t. What will he do? He will reward. He’ll reward people who have lived lives faithlessly and without love, and he will reward those who have lived in faith and love. That is his judgment, his assessment. Like Paul said, do not deceive yourselves. who have lived in faith and love. That is his judgment, his assessment.
Like Paul said, do not deceive yourselves. What we reap is what we sow. So if you sow to the spirit of this world, if you sow to the flesh, if you sow to your carnal nature, you’ll reap in the afterlife what you’ve sown. And in the afterlife, which is spiritualown and in the afterlife which is spiritual that means nothing you’ll be rewarded with nothing and those who have laid up treasures in heaven selflessly and full of faith they will be rewarded accordingly in and through i believe their resurrected bodies all right uh what tie or will will Satanists be accepted into heaven?
Well, Satanists. OK, it’s a big answer and I’m going to give it in a really short response. Satan was taken care of by the victory of Christ. So to be a Satanist really is not worshiping a real being. A Satanist worships on principles that are of this world or of self or of the dark.
Can a Satanist in this life enter into the heavenly realm? Of course they can, because God’s love never fails. It’s enduring. He calls to everyone all the time. And so a Satanist, when they die, will probably exist outside the kingdom. But God is calling to them constantly. And if and when they decide to humble themselves and be contrite, they could enter into the kingdom of heaven by virtue of the victory of Christ.
All right. To prioritize people in the chat, the real Brock Law experience. I’m not sure what you’re commenting. Barbara and Chuck Norris, North Ogden, Utah. Barbara Stogden Norris and God knows how many last name divorces they have gone through since. Was my boss at RealNet in Ogden, Utah, 2007 and John Vogel.
what is that owned real net on 30th street in ogden utah barbara’s son william died in 2021 and i suspect mother snuck into the house and pillowcases face if it wasn’t the wife firstborn sacrifice in utah i don, firstborn sacrifice in Utah. Firstborn sacrifice in Utah. I don’t know what is happening today and all the days around us. It’s getting more insane.
Whoever that is has snorted too much chili powder. Okay. Thanks, Real Brock Law. Let’s keep going. Based solely on the Bible, what does it teach about the concept of the Trinity? Oh. And someone else, I think that same person, why do Yeshuans reject the Trinity? Okay. First of all, Yeshuans do not reject the Trinity.
I personally don’t teach the Trinity, but I don’t represent a doctrinal certainty. I just have the view that God is one and he’s made of two, not three, that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God in the old Testament and the spirit of Christ after his, uh, uh, ascension in the fall of the spirit at Pentecost. So you don’t think that that’s a yes.
You in, we don’t have doctrines and dogmas that define us. So no, it’s a, it’s a thing explored at yes, at the organization. Yes, definitely. And my teachings reject the Trinity, but a yes. When allows all views for anybody to believe and think as they wish. That’s what makes us distinct from every other denomination on earth.
And we just believe that it’s between the individual and God to believe the doctrines they want. We teach a certain way, but I know people who are kind of still uncertain about the Trinity, and they’re more than welcome to believe what they want however biblically the bible uh actually in my estimation refutes most of the tenets of the trinity for a bunch of reasons but while people aren’t really here right now can i ask you about how we just we just had a show where we named we’re calling it the yeshuan model of subjective faith in the next age and we’re
naming the next age and all these characteristics about it um one of the part of that is the ontology of god and things like that so that should maybe be corrected because it’s not a demand. We’re not demanding it, but does it characterize a Yeshua? I don’t know. I don’t know that we can say that because if we do, we go down a denominational road of musts.
Does it? Okay. What about fulfillment? Same. The only problem is if you embrace fulfillment but you think that christ is still coming back there’s a huge problem theologically but so are so is being a mormon or whatever yeah so what we do as yeshuans is we teach what we think the bible says but we leave you free and loved to believe what you want. Okay.
At the essence of Yeshuans is that there isn’t doctrine. Yeah. That we don’t have demanded doctrines for God to love you, accept you, or for you to be saved or any of that, because we’re not a brick and mortar institution that demands doctrinal certainties from people. And we have a framework where we perceive the Bible to actually emphasize that.
Yeah. Non-doctrinal. Absolutely. You don’t have to even agree with that. Right. And that framework Delaney’s referencing is found in Jeremiah 31, 31 through 34. And it’s echoed in Hebrews twice. So, and it’s God writes his laws in our hearts and minds if he does that we don’t all interpret that the same way um here’s a good question how many contradictions are there in yeshuan theology and like that’s this is an interesting thing.
What is Yeshuan theology, Sean? How many contradictions? Theology, we promote and maintain faith and love subjectively, period. That is the only theology. That’s the only theology a Yeshuan has. There’s no even suggesting Christ in that theology. Even though the name of us is Yeshuans. Yeah, because we can have people who come in and say, I don’t believe in Christ.
So come and sit down. Because it’s by the spirit of Christ that we believe people are in relationship with God, not doctrine. in relationship with god not doctrine it’s such a strange it’s this weird cyclical thing that i really want to figure out precise words for but maybe i never will well that’s what probably you can’t because if you did then it would become doctrinal i know yeah it’s literally the hardest thing but it is it’s the theology is subjective yeah like what faith even is is hard to say yeah in that
sense what love is is hard to say for people we tell you what we think but you don’t have to follow this uh it’s really we’re educational and then we leave you to decide so if you threw out anything at me i think i could field it from a yeshuan perspective and uh versus uh an evangelical or a mormon or catholic perspective very different so did you answer this how many questions how many contradictions are there i don’t know i’m sure they’re contradictions because I’m a walking contradiction. Sometimes my flesh tells someone to F off and on a Yeshua platform and, and, but I’m supposed to walk by love. The whole point is we are contradictory in our flesh versus our spirit. So I don’t know the answer to that. Hopefully we’re not contradictory in terms of our biblical assessment.
There’s a lot of questions from this person in this vein. Where does a Muslim go when they die? Where does a rapist who denied Jesus go when they die? Let me just talk about these. A rapist has been forgiven past present and future by the victorious work of christ then they reject jesus as a rapist they reject jesus as a rapist they do not enter into the kingdom of god because you only enter into the kingdom of god by faith by faith so if they reject faith that’s what I’m assuming that’s what that
means they don’t enter when they accept by faith God then they enter in it’s so complex though ask more because there are constraints there like but what is faith and what is god those have doctrinal assumptions you know what i’m saying they’re doctrinal assumptions but they’re very very mild they’re a thin thin thin line in uh and god knows from the heart I think more definitive of a yeshuan is that we can’t say that in another person.
I think that’s. We can’t say that or see that. We can’t say if another person’s faith is faith. Oh, absolutely. That’s the definition. Yeah. That’s. Okay. Right. Yeah. Like people. That’s why it’s different from Christianity is they say there is a way to define what that faith is and what that God is.
Right. And what is excluded from that. And we can’t. No. And just to put words in your mouth, the evangelical says the faith must be in Jesus. It must be in him being seen rightly. It must be as him as a second person of the Trinity. And it must be this and it must be that it must be this.
But I don’t step back from faith being necessary to enter the kingdom of God. What that faith is predicated on. Can you define that? What that faith is predicated on you define that it’s what that faith is predicated it is looking to God however he’s defined she’s defined yeah and saying I believe you are there I am seeking to understand you believe you help me and someone who thinks it’s the universe that’s up to god to decide you know because somebody’s faith in the universe could be superior to an evangelical’s faith in the living god that they
say we can’t tell like here we have a call we have a call coming in oh good wonderful wonderful Oh, good. Wonderful. Wonderful. Welcome to Sunday afternoon. You’re on the air with Sean and Delaney. Who’s this? This is Billy. What’s going on, Sean? Hey, Billy. How you doing, man? I’m doing well. I’m doing well.
I heard the question about the rapist, and I had a question. Yeah. So you said that he won’t enter the kingdom, but his sins have been paid for. Yeah. So there’s like this liminal space between the kingdom of God and our physical realm. And wouldn’t that just be hell at that point? Well, you know, you could call it that.
But I just because revelation says that hell has been cast into the lake of fire and i believe that’s been fulfilled i think it is a a self-appointed realm that uh dispossessed uh people dispossessed to their bodies live in until their heart is ready to receive what God has offered them. Can I offer my opinion on this? And it might not be right.
I’d love it. This is something. What’s your thoughts on post-mortem repentance, meaning the ability to repent after you die? to repent after you die. And that could extend into the eons and eons of the future, but it allows the opportunity for everyone to eventually come into the kingdom, per se. I absolutely personally believe in it based off the description of love in first corinthians because it says it it endures all things it believes all things it hopes all things and it never fails god is love so i believe
that there is a constant call on all souls here and in the afterlife. Completely agreed. Because in 2 Peter, it says God desires everyone to come to salvation and knowledge of the truth. That’s right. I mean, so that was God’s plan when creating the world, and that’s God’s plan for after. Like, there’s nothing to say that that stops being God’s desire.
Right. And so a lot of evangelicals have this God who desires this, but ultimately his plan fails. Yeah. 99.9% of humanity, billions and billions and billions of people fall outside the kingdom because they don’t know Jesus. Exactly. Right with you. And the problem actually gets solved if you just say, well, no, there’s nothing to say that God’s plan extends into eternity.
Right. That’s the way I just deal with it. You know, not to say he forces anyone to the kingdom. You know, I don’t think we’re not Calvinists. Right. But the gates of heaven, the gates of Jerusalem might always stay open to some extent. Right with you, Billy. I accept that completely. All right, man. That’s it. with you, Billy. I accept that completely.
All right, man. That’s it. All right, man. Give love to Alex and the kids. All right, man. Later. Bye-bye. Bye. I just love thinkers like Billy and seekers who, you know, I don’t know how we got to the place except through a literal interpretation of the apostolic record into our lives to think that you live live now you better accept it or you’re going to burn forever i just it’s just unconscionable it really is wild um phoenix do you believe that those who haven’t accepted christ’s payment for their sin will have to suffer for their own sin like Christ suffered a purifying
fire. The purifying fire, I don’t know about because I don’t know what it takes to enter into the kingdom above where God is the light of it. And I don’t know if for a soul outside of the kingdom trying to come in has to go through some purging of some sort.
You know, it seems like if we have to suffer here, that there must be some kind of pain or not, not, not physical, but some sort of anguish where you bend the knee, you crawl you and you go, but that’s conjecture. I don’t know. Uh, I don’t think we know. So, yeah. Okay. Do you have any more on that? I could talk to you forever about my own qualms with, it really is once you put words to it, it’s not okay anymore.
And that’s at kind of the core. It’s like it’s so subjective that once it’s not okay anymore. And that’s at, that’s at kind of the core. It’s like, it’s so subjective that once it’s given language, it’s too reduced. And that’s what faith is. That’s what God is. It’s like, it can’t, God can’t be reduced.
And every time we reduce him, it’s a problem. It causes a problem. So that’s why it’s personal and subject. Like it can’t be encapsulated between two people yeah it’s just one yeah um but the bible does give a definition of faith faith is a substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen okay right that has nothing to do with god it doesn’t that’s exactly right That’s what I’m like. So when you say it’s about faith, I’m like, do you mean in a certain kind of understanding of God or just like there’s just this humility?
I think there’s a humility. And the way we can explain that is just look at the Aborigine. Yeah, it’s just like a heart. How would the Aborigine know God? How would he know him from anything, you know? It’s faith in a substance that is not seen. And the Aborigine says, I don’t know what’s there, but I want to know you better.
That is sufficient. The evangelicals have said, no, you got to have this, this, this, this. And I just don’t believe that. We believe that it’s because of christ absolutely person in history that it’s this way but you can’t even assert that no and that knowledge that that’s why it’s the case is not needed either right um by the way hard uh by the way what you just said i don’t know this is me trying to do too many things at once oh what was i going to say about the faith and in who and in what and why
oh so here’s the thing if christ was god with us god so a faith in God is enough. Not the ontology of Christ. Not the Christ man, God, because he was God with us, right? So here’s the thing about that. In the Bible, in the New Testament, those Jews had to believe on him.
And that’s why the scripture says, believe on him or perish or die right but that was because he came to them and it was in that time and that but the spirit is what we talk about now and that’s why we stand the way we do on this it’s not you have to know him you don’t even have to know that there are jews you don’t have to know anything like all that is there’s a separation between all of the actual justifications for this position and the position itself because there’s so much that justifies why yeah biblically historically but you don’t even have to believe
like we would argue that what you believe if it’s not that is kind of inconsistent with being humble and thinking everyone’s okay like you can’t really be a mormon and think everyone’s okay and stuff but somehow people do and so that observation that there are people it’s like an observational thing about humans that there’s a discrepancy between our material beliefs and our heart.
Yeah. And that’s what we’re trying to suggest is God and faith is in that like gap or whatever. Really hard. Because we don’t have a perfect knowledge we don’t even have a working knowledge we don’t have any really an understanding of god right yeah no right so but we toggle back and forth between talking about the bible and like so much that justifies it um okay this person had a series of questions also about acts 11 speaking of the bible is the literary style of acts apocalyptic literature and then is the style of acts
if the style of acts is not apocalyptic literature why is acts 11 grouped into apocalyptic literature does the simple mention of his second coming make it apocalyptic literature i think all of the apostolic record was uh you know generally speaking um apocalyptic literature because it was can you read acts 11111? Acts 1.11 saith.
Acts 1.11. Oh, it’s a great passage. It says, which also you men of Gentile, why are you gazing up to heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you see him go into heaven so g like that’s an apocalyptic promise he’s coming back right and there’s a way to say it where the whole by the whole new testament is apocalyptic literature or none of it is because the world didn’t end. That economy ended.
But like to say that’s, is, does that what apocalyptic means? Apocalypse or whatever? Yeah. It’s the end time. It’s the end of things. It’s the apocalypse and the four horsemen of the apocalypse and revelation. But you’re right. It’s all about the end times of that age. That was the apocalypse, not the end of the world.
Okay. Yeah. By the way, I just want to comment on something before you go on. And that is, uh, um, Billy’s, uh, reference to first Peter, where he said that God was not willing to, that any should perish in the Greek.
Uh, and I want to read that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to us word, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Okay. That word in the Greek, not willing, is boulamahi. And it means it’s his will. He is not willing that any would perish. Oh, like he’s not determining it that someone would perish? He’s like, I’m just not going to let it happen.
Oh. Yeah. That any would perish. He will not will the fact for anyone to perish. No, he’s not willing that anyone would perish. He’s not. Excited about it or something? He’s not going to allow it. I see. He’s not going to allow anyone to perish. And that word perish is Apollomahy. And he is going to redeem all all he will redeem all in the end that’s that’s kind of the mindset that i think billy was talking about and i believe in that god um let me answer that sarah says can you see me now we actually can see your comments now. So whatever happened, we can see you now.
Those were the angels, not the devils. And Max says, so cool, you have an app now. Thanks. Todd said, define parish, please. Oh, yeah. So, you know, if we look at the inner linear of that, the word perish is apolomohi, and it means, well, the way they translate it is to destroy fully, but really it means to mar, lose, die, destroy. But there are places where perish is used in the text by Yeshua himself, where it cannot mean utterly destroy.
It means not permanent and it’s not complete. It’s not annihilation. We think it means annihilation, but it doesn’t. This means suffer loss. And he is not willing that anyone will suffer a lot. Like he doesn’t even want that in general that’s that seems to be it but the problem with it is that um there are places where perish does mean to suffer loss so i know i’m being kind of contradictory on this one because it’s complicated it is complicated well i feel like it maybe the way the garden was set up implies what he was willing for he was
hoping there wouldn’t be loss and death yeah perishing and but gave the free like there’s his it’s what his will is is or willing means is kind of a big question. Right, because there’s also the question of God may not be willing, but is an individual willing. And then we have a whole conundrum. Yeah, yeah.
Are you going to read that? No. Okay. Are you going to read that? No. Okay. From our friend Max. It’s Max Frank on here, but Max, I believe you’re… I don’t remember your last name. He’s come around… He had an event in here one time. Is that you, Max? The same Max? That wasn’t Max.
You the the um yeah the uh psychedelic yeah thing uh that max bonnet max bonnet that’s you right yeah it says max frank is your name but i’m pretty sure well we i don’t think there’s a twofold names on YouTube. Uh-oh. I’m sorry if we got you in trouble there. He said, Sean, at this point in your understanding, one, who’s Jesus? Two, who’s God? Three, what does salvation mean? And four, bonus round, do you ever enjoy reading the Gospel of Thomas or others? I want to add on here some question a question from that same person in the ai does the bible make a distinction between jesus and the holy spirit
so if you want to answer all these okay first one so who is who is yeshua um who is god yeah yeshua god salvation and got book of thomas god is uh the one true and living god i believe where i am at today that god is one perfect plural and that that plural plurality is a perfect masculine and perfect feminine representation because God said, let us, that’s the plural, make man in our own image.
And it says male and female made he them. So my current understanding, and I think it’s going to stay, is that God is one perfect plural of masculine and feminine traits, not male and female, masculine and feminine. And so that’s how I understand God. I believe the Old Testament God was more demonstrative through the masculine traits and that the apostolic record or New Testament God is more of a manifestation of his feminine traits.
Okay. And then what else? Is the Holy Spirit the same as the Spirit as Christ? That was from someone else, but yes. No. Does the Bible make a distinction between Yeshua and the Holy Spirit? A distinction only in terms of Christ being material and the Holy Spirit being of the Old Testament, but the Holy Spirit becoming the Spirit of Christ in the new.
That is a significant change that the Holy Spirit of the Old Testament, which is the Spirit of God, the one God, that Holy Spirit became synonymous with the spirit of Christ. Okay. Okay. We need to work on this AI because it’s not fully answering it well. Just for anyone who uses that, I’ll just make a note here.
It says the answer that it gave was that it’s complex, but the term Holy Spirit is used synonymously and interchangeably with the terms, the spirit of Jesus and the spirit of the Lord, the spirit of his son, the spirit of Jesus Christ. That’s right. That’s true. Yeah. The phrases are described as representing the mind and power of Christ who guides believers to do the will of God and his Father.
That’s right. The Holy Spirit has been traditionally viewed as part of the triune Godhead in Orthodox Christianity, but Yeshuns point out there are arguments against this view. For instance, Paul’s greetings in the throne imagery in Revelation primarily mention God the Father and Jesus Christ, but not the Holy Spirit.
That’s right. The Holy Spirit has led to the argument that the Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the divine nature, power, and presence of God. That’s right. That’s right. That’s an excellent summary. However, some teachings, I just want to, this is like testing the AI, but some teachings on Yeshua suggest that there could be a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus Christ based on the life experiences and human nature of Jesus.
Right. This suggests that the Spirit of Jesus Christ, while having the full presence of the Holy Spirit, could have a tangible difference due to the human experience of Jesus. That’s right. While the Bible term uses terms synonymously between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus Christ, interpretations vary on whether these terms indicate a distinct difference. Yeah.
And so one thing that makes us uh unique that was an excellent answer one thing that makes us distinct is that trinitarians or makes me and delaney or whoever distinct is that trinitarians say that the holy spirit uh is the third person separate and distinct from the Father, separate and distinct from the Son, and that it’s co-eternal, co-equal, and uncreated.
And then Trinitarians, because of that, they say that that Holy Spirit could not dwell in man prior to Christ’s payment for sin. That’s not true, according to the Bible. And then because of the Trinity, there’s a problem with that idea that the Holy Spirit was a person because Matthew and Luke say that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived.
If the Holy Spirit was a person separate and distinct from the Father and the Son, then Christ is a product of the holy spirit and he’s not the son of the father there are so many things like that that show finally the holy spirit certainly evolved that’s the only way we can see it because of the incarnation yeah absolutely okay thank you uh if you’re just tuning in or new, we are streaming across a bunch of different channels right now. So and testing it out. We’re aiming for next week to have all of the chats consolidated so you can see the comments coming in from any place on the screen.
and also video calling in from the internet so we can take international calls and stuff like that. So that’s been in discussion in this chat here. So I wanted to clear that up. Awesome. Okay. Oh, there’s so many questions here. Good. I don’t even know how to sort through them. If anyone has them in the chisity chat, please submit.
Okay. Todd submitted a question a couple weeks ago that we never, because we weren’t doing calls in the forums. Sean, in a recent Facebook thread on an older post, you referred to the Mormon church as an, quote, empire of death, unquote.
What did or do you mean by that, especially in light of your more recent realizations? Do you still see it that way? Would you now maybe describe it as just another false religion where individuals may or may not be practicing a faith that is pleasing to God, as with any other religion? When I talk about it as an empire of death, I’m talking about the doctrine and practices, teachings from the top down.
And why is it an empire of death? Because those teachings are contradictory to contextual scripture, and they will not lead to life in the hereafter. But they do lead to better living sometimes here, just like joining the military, just like any earthly institution. But in terms of spiritual life, it is an empire of death.
Now, that’s not to say a Mormon individual can’t participate and even believe it and be full of the spirit of Christ and follow him. But the institution is an empire of death. Well, he’s calling in. All right. So he gets to discuss it. Todd, you’re on the air. All right. I actually tried twice and it didn’t go through.
And I thought, oh, I’m going to message you and say the phones are not working. And then all of a sudden it worked. So I don’t know what’s up with that. We’ve got devils that are. It’s the actual Satan in my presence today, I swear. The actual adversary. Yeah, and it worked just as you were reading my old question.
Isn’t that funny? I swear there’s something in the air today. That’s insane. Well, hey, you can answer that one later if you would. I just wanted to call and if I can ask a question about, I wanted to flesh out this morning a little bit more about how do you define good, Sean? When you had that teaching and the heuristic or the symbol that you used that had the box and I brought it up.
Yeah. And it had the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Did you ever do like a word study on the word good? Why do they use that word if in, everything in that box is not good? Is it just for the sake of convenience? No, I really think that the—okay, Todd, I think that the fundamental difference, what God told Adam and Eve, the fundamental difference between those two trees is faith in God, which is eat of the tree of life and just follow me, or knowledge.
And I think knowledge is the antithesis to faith. I think man sought knowledge and not faith. And so they ate of that tree that gave them a package of knowledge that was both good and evil. The problem is human beings, we’re not God. And so we’re not able to navigate and manage that knowledge. And so we make a mess of it all the way.
So that’s what I think the major difference is. And so the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil always leads to death. Because even though it can produce good things, for instance, Apple computers are good. I’m just making that up. But are they true? No. You know, donuts are good. Are they true no so in this world and the knowledge that we operate by as human beings we operate by knowledge that is good and knowledge that and produces good in this realm and evil and produces evil in this realm but neither go with us into the heavenly kingdom. That’s how I would say it.
That actually helps a lot. Oh, good. Good. Yeah, it really does. I mean, because I’m wondering what’s the difference between so many guys that I know that are quote unquote good and do good. And then my mind trips out on the fact that that good does potentially doesn’t follow them into the next realm. Yeah.
Because, because their faith ultimately defines what is good. And that’s something, and that comes from the heart, something we cannot read. That’s right. God alone can read. That’s right. The other thing about it, Todd, is the good that comes from the knowledge of good and evil, it leads to pride. Because it’s good in this world, and so pride follows in after it.
Oh, we have the best church. We have the richest church. We have the best tech. We have the richest church. We have the best tech. We have the best food. Good leads to pride when the knowledge of good is given to man. And pride is the antithesis of what God wants from us. And so knowledge has always been, I mean, knowledge is proclaimed as important it, it cannot trump faith.
Okay. Yeah. That’s very, it’s just so impactful. The more I think about it, it just makes me in a sense, not really. Okay. I want to be careful when I say this, not care what somebody else believes, says, or does in a very specific context, because we’re so unqualified to judge. Yep. I mean, we can make discernments, but there’s at no point should we really be judging.
So, oh man, I guess I get too far in the weeds on this, because when you think about the Mormon church or Sharia law or some of these things that are definitely not good, I guess as long as we’re always couching our discussion or our arguments against an ideology and never a human being. But then that doesn’t make sense either because a human being can do stuff that’s demonstrably not good and it’s okay to call them out.
It always goes back to the heart condition as to whether or not you’re judging them or just objectively treating something as not good or bad and then providing your reasoned defense for it. Yeah, and you make such a good point because it’s the heart condition of, it’s really the motive, the intentionality of the individual, and it could be just a weakness in their flesh that they do wrong or evil, but it’s not their heart intention.
And that’s why God judges the heart and his son paid for the ax. So could, in your estimation, somebody in what I might have one day called, and maybe still would, a false religion, could it be that their heart condition is so pure and true? I mean, they could be doing better than you or I. I believe that.
Absolutely. That’s why I think you can have, even though their theology is so screwed up, in my opinion, a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever, or Mormon, I think that the individual’s heart is seeking for that God and wants to love by the Spirit in them. God’s judging that, not the doctrinal error of their beliefs.
Do you think then, I guess it would be case-specific, for it to be unkind to tell somebody or share information about that kind of distinction. And then if, in fact, you think that person is in a particular religion because they’re fearful to leave that which gives them comfort and validation and whatnot, I guess, I mean, that’s a stupid question maybe.
No, it’s a good one. I think. To bring that part up, I, it wouldn’t be as a judgment, but it would just be to say, Hey man, this is, this is something maybe you ought to think about because if your heart is in the right wrong place, then you’re spinning your wheels. Yeah.
Yeah. I think it’s a good thing to bring up, but again, situational, like you said, case by case. And if what is our motive in doing it? And that’s the other thing, you know, our motive, our heart in wanting to do that and share that with somebody, is it because we want to help liberate them and improve their life and open their eyes? Or is it because we want to judge them and condemn them according to the practice, the religious practice they embrace. So it’s all about the heart.
Which is the mission of heart of the matter now, right? I mean, this is, we’re not a church. We’re not a religion. We’re an educational philosophical institution that offers a perspective for people that are already seeking. And then if they’re asking questions, we could potentially provide an answer for them.
But my day-to-day isn’t going around trying to point out what’s wrong about other people’s epistemology anymore. Yeah. Praise God. Well said, Todd. All right. All right. I said, just. All right. All right. I love that teaching with regard to man, I don’t know, I’ll put it up on Facebook or something, but it just makes so much sense.
That box heuristic, I really like that one. Yeah, thank you. It was the first heuristic I came up with. Yeah. It says kind of all of it. Yeah. Praise God. Thank you, brother. All right. Hey, we’ll catch you guys later. All right, Todd. God bless you. Love to your family. I went on a tangent while you guys were talking to look up good and evil, like theymology stuff and there’s a lot of different things about it but part of it as you’re i think what you’re pointing out there’s an idea a thing called mer merism where it’s in hebrew where they just say opposites to imply everything
it’s like the knowledge of everything like oh say one thing and then you say the other and it means just like yeah the knowledge of everything yeah and oh okay good and evil also evil can be bad evil and bad like i think bad was maybe a better translation sometimes than evil but um good was good yeah someone just walked excellent walked in. Excellent. We hope you are.
Oh, it’s Margo. Hello, Margo. We’re actually on, Margo. It started at two. I’m sorry. Sorry. Yeah. No, I know. I’m sorry. There’s been a mistake if it’s two or three. That was my fault. We’ve had chaos in our lives. It’s been chaotic. But anyway, knowledge is the the problem it’s the problem because good and bad are as fluid of defined terms as anything culturally like it changes like someone could could describe the normatures as good and someone could describe it exactly and some people call one political party
good one call it it’s endless not. It never has been possible. Right. And that’s really an important point, that knowledge. God did not want Adam and Eve to have that knowledge. Bottom line. He did not want them to. His power. Yeah. His power is the knowledge. Yeah. And in our hands, it’s caused what the world is now.
It’s just like, who was the one? Prometheus, he brought down fire. I mean, and the gods cursed him. The gods did not want people to have fire, and he brought it down for them anyway. That’s kind of the symbol of Adam and Eve. Eve ate of that fruit because it was pleasant to the eyes, good for food, and would make one one wise that last line is the killer because when humans think they’re wise you’re in big trouble that really is the the problem it’s so interesting that we’ve had such crazy criticism about knowledge about the idea of knowledge because that’s at the core the knowledge
is the like if you were to to describe life it’s the opposite of knowledge yeah like yeah in terms of the trees right because it’s a tree of knowledge and there’s a tree of life life is the opposite of knowledge yes like and larry norris senior uh called me and said it’s always knowledge has always been opposite of what god wants for us he wants us to have believing hearts so you see where man really has messed up that’s why yeah that’s what religion functions on certainty and yeah collect anything collective it comes down to wow that’s really
interesting yeah max also asked if the old testament god was more masculine and the quote unquote new testament god is more feminine would you say the god of our current age is a perfect marriage of god’s perfect masculinity and femininity i would and i would say that masculinity has when it is right has a perfect balance of femininity and femininity has a perfect balance of masculinity and in that we reflect the image of God. And when we as individuals are most whole is when we have both.
That’s right. And it’s balanced. Yeah. And how it plays out in relationships and everything else. And that’s the problem with the church for the past 2000 years. It’s been Old Testament and it’s been masculine and it’s been top down and it’s been based in law and it’s been based even in violence and death and christ he came and he obviously brought more feminine traits be meek be mild peace nah yeah and again to say it’s male and female is where the church gets it backward because that is saying marriage is male and female it’s like
marriage is the unity of masculine and feminine and i i’m kind of under the impression that can happen in like there’s more masculine in a woman and more feminine in a man and they marry each other sure that balance between the two makes for a good marriage absolutely the two become one like it’s not it’s usually more commonly with men and women yeah and those wait but like i think there are or even in friendships or something sure and god in the old testament while extremely masculine he was feminine too and christ in the Testament. While extremely feminine in his traits. Was very masculine.
So I’m not saying that they were just one and one. They were a mix. And so that’s why in marriage. We have the same thing. Brought to the table. Yeah. Okay. Well Margo in the audience. Do you have any questions? Anything to say? Yeah. Yeah. Sure. I’ll just hold this up for you. Is it plugged in, Del? Margo’s here in studio with us.
Margo’s here in studio with us. I’m just thinking about my own life and how those two characteristics have developed over time, masculine and feminine. Because I’m perceived as a very feminine woman, I kind of look that way. But as I look at it, through the early years of my life, that femininity operated as submission because I had a patriarchal system over me.
And now I can realize over time how Christ has been gradually developing the masculine part in me which is his trait yeah and and so i can see the marriage of the two and it’s really really fascinating yeah it is thank you so much margo uh it is fascinating and you know in christ uh women become better and men become better that’s uh that’s the key that’s uh that’s the key without him i’m not so sure yeah more whole yeah more like you’re able to have both of those parts of you without being guilty or something like feeling horrible yeah
okay well there’s a good amount of questions still left on here but keep going we only have two minutes left. Are there any? Throw a few out. Come on. I love questions. Okay, okay, okay, okay. Favorite thing. Let’s do. Did we answer the Christ in politics? No. Oh, there’s a backlog of questions. Okay, Sean, I’d really love your, I’d really value your thoughts on this.
I’d really love your, I’d really value your thoughts on this. You’ve often said you’re not political, that your focus is firmly on following Yeshua rather than earthly systems. I respect that deeply. I’m trying to understand whether you see that as a personal calling or whether you believe followers of Christ in general should avoid political and civic engagement.
A question is specifically about calling. Do you believe there are some followers of Christ who may be genuinely called to engage publicly through politics, advocacy, or leadership, challenge moral issues, protect people, while others are focused to call solely on proclamation and discipleship? Do you see political engagement itself as crossing a line for followers of Yeshua? I’m not asking about coercion or force, but persuasion, conscience, public witness.
I’d really appreciate your perspective. There’s liberty in Christ, however you’re led. If you as a believer are led to be involved in politics to make the world better, go, go, go, go. But here’s the problem. Don’t use Christ’s name as the impetus for your doing what you do. It’s of this world.
His kingdom is not of this world. And when you hijack Christ’s name and you insert him and his will for the whole world into your little pet political stance, you are abrogating his salvific work for the world remember he saved communists he saved everybody he is not an american he’s not a capitalist he’s not a communist he is christ so i see a great problem with people saying it’s our christian duty to do things in his name for the simple reason besides all this he never did it and would you say that it’s the spirit of man that’s guiding a person into politics?
Absolutely. Like, and on that note of good and bad, it’s like toward good and bad. Right. And two opposing people could think good is going in two opposing political directions. Yes. By that same spirit of man. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But. By that same spirit of man. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But Christ, it’s just like irrelevant.
Christ, if he wanted the political system, he would have had one during the Roman Empire, for God’s sake. I mean, those people were barbaric and he would touch it. Never. But that’s also not to say Christ didn’t get in politics. You shouldn’t get in politics.
That’s not to say christ didn’t get in politics you shouldn’t get in politics that’s not to say that either because this world is in our hands so if you’re a christian and you’re led to politics go but just don’t use his name in it and i hate that they do that is a bad one it’s a bad one okay we talked we talked in a previous one about raising children in the fulfilled framework yeah okay no did we who’s the who’s the questioner hayden oh badly yeah and everyone you know everyone gave their, like a lot of different people chimed in. I don’t remember.
Yeah, we talked about that one. Last few, let’s do two more. One more from Todd. The church fathers are crazy, quote unquote. You’ve said that some of the so-called church fathers taught some pretty wacky things, ideas that don’t get much airtime in reformed churches for obvious reasons. Are you aware of any specific examples that would support the claim? Instances they held, beliefs that could reasonably be described as bizarre.
One that comes to mind, and I really have not read the church fathers because once, this is how I work in order to survive with content and information. Once I find a glitch, I just drop it because if they’ve proven themselves to be glitchy, I’m not going to keep spending my time trying to learn from them. Well, one thing was they said, you have to be baptized in living water.
You have to be living water is water that moves. So you can’t be baptized, right? You laugh. You can’t be baptized right you laugh you can’t be baptized in a pond you have to be baptized in a river and that was made up by men who make up religion and that’s one early church father claim and that was ubiquitous in the early church after christ took his bride okay yeah um okay last one perhaps this is a big one metamorphosis of yeshua sean this is from jeff sean you have spoken about the significance of yeshua’s ascension
and the return of 70 ce uh perhaps of his final return to the heavenly realm after that in terms of his integration with and into one god it seems clear to me that you represent these as the greatest transformation he went through. With that in mind, what significance or meaning to you give the metamorphosis, which the synoptic gospels say took place on the mount, often called the mount of transfiguration, with all the striking details about the change in his appearance, with all the striking details about his change in his appearance, uh, with all the striking details
about his, his change in his appearance. Did this represent some type of change in his composition or status? Similarly, what about what happened to him at his baptism with the spirit descending upon him like a dove and the voice from heaven. What was that spirit that descended upon him in comparison to what had already had animated him from even before the baptism? These are good questions.
Going to the first one or the last one first, the spirit that fell upon him at his baptism was similar to an anointing that the high priests of Israel would get when they poured oil on their head. And so his baptism was a washing through the water and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, like they did to high priests in that day and age who would go into the temple and do the work.
So he was at his baptism, anointed by the Holy Spirit, washed anointed for his what he would do as our king and priest. So that was the last question. What was the one before? I know it was long. I’m getting his appearance on. Oh, transfiguration. I just don’t see it as emblematic of anything that happened to him substantially materially or spiritually on the mount all i see that as is uh peter james and john um being able to see the law and the prophets we have a call we have a call coming in let’s take it all right and we’ll pick up on the law and the prophets. Oh, they just hung up. Oh, well.
So it says that Moses shows up on the Mount of Transfiguration, and Elijah shows up. Moses was the law. He gave the law. Elijah was the greatest of the prophets. And then it writes, and then when Peter looked up again, he saw Christ alone, meaning that it’s all fulfilled in him that’s what the Mount of Transfiguration was about not some kind of a thing where Yeshua changed because he had not suffered for sin yet and he hadn’t been glorified by his father okay um someone is trying to sign up for the app. Just letting you know the Apple mobile app is down right now. We’re working on that. Everything is awry technologically with us. They’re not getting the email to activate it. I am going to blow my brains out, but I’m sorry for that. I think I just activated you. If your username is Max, then you’re activated.
Welcome, Max. I hope you’re Max, who we love from down south. It’s a different person, though. It’s not the Max. There’s two different people with the name Max, so I’m tripping out right now. Also, whoever just called, you were on hold while he was talking, and I think you hung up. So call back maybe next week.
Next week, 2 o’clock Sunday, Mountain Time. We’ll get it dialed as best as I can because I’m not good at this. But thanks everyone for your patience. We love you guys. You’re very good at it, Delaney. Keep a stiff upper lip because we have dark forces that are working. They’ve risen up just in the past week.
It’s insane. It’s really remarkable. So pray for us that God will keep his mighty angels of light and keep all these dark forces against us. We love you. Keep the faith. And you can email me if you’re in the chat. Delaney at yeshuans.faith. I’m putting that there. If you have trouble, you guys can call and text this same phone number throughout the week, and we’ll get it, and we’ll answer it next week.
So Firesides, 2 p.m. Do we like 2 p.m.? We like 2 p.m. Okay, 2 p.m. on Sundays, and we’ll see you next time thank you all