January 18th, 2026 Yeshuan Fireside

LIVE: Yeshuan Fireside with Shawn McCraney and Delaney McCraney Norris

Transcripts:
Welcome, this is the Yeshua in Firesides. I’m Delaney. You can see on your screen, it says you can call or text us 220-222-4686. We’re part of Yeshua’s. We think Jesus already returned. We think that he fulfilled everything, that God set the standard through his son, that there’s no need for prophets and apostles and pastors and teachers.
But in this day and age, God writes directly on the hearts and minds of those who seek him in spirit and truth. Yes. I suggest that that’s outside of denominational jurisdiction, power, control. We believe that God is calling and reaching through Christ to all people, everywhere, all the time. And if you join with us in that, then you’re probably a Yeshuan too.
We’re building up an app. It is currently accessible. It’s called Yeshuans. Go to yeshuans.faith, Y-E-S-H-U-a-n-s dot faith to access it and that is where we retrieve lots of questions there’s forums there’s an ai chat bot uh there’s courses there’s a bunch of stuff it’s all free and you can be a part of it but Sundays, Mountain Time at 2, we do the Fireside. Then on Tuesdays at 8 p.m. Mountain, we air Heart of the Matter.
At 8 p.m. Epiphany. Epiphany, where we believe that the risen Christ has fully come into power. We use January 6th as the day we say he did it but it’s just emblematic of the idea that he rose materially and returned materially for his bride in that day and today that after two thousand years of men making a mess of organized religion in his name he’s returned spiritually to those who are his guess what your microphone has been totally down this whole time but they can hear you in the background so do i need to talk louder no they they heard you in the background if you can’t
tell we’re a small team so things get um tricky sometimes but anyway we have a bunch of questions from this week all right all right let’s start with that one actually someone wrote in the ai chat bot what did sean announce on january 6th because they clearly didn’t want to sit and watch a two-hour episode hey that’s not fair it’s not fair um but you did announce and you just said you announced you marked january 6th so it’s the day and maybe you don’t want to answer it sure and make them we’ll
answer it okay we since essentially said that with historic Christianity celebrating three material events of Christ’s life on January 6th, we are calling that his spiritual epiphany into the world today, that as the darkness grows around us and humanism in its darkest forms roil, we believe that the living God is rising up more powerfully in those people of faith people of faith not christians only all people of faith um we could talk a lot about that yeah what you know what where yeshua is or isn’t needed and not i’ve been thinking lately that uh
isn’t needed and not I’ve been thinking lately that oh thank you um Sarah who told us that the bike was down um I’ve been thinking lately that it I think part of what we’re saying is that where Yeshua is or where love is yeshua is i think that’s another way of saying it sure and the spirit of yeshua yeah and so which gets tricky to be like you don’t need to know that it’s yeshua or you don’t need to know but we will stand firm on the fact that it is sure so anyway and we stand on the fact that someday we
believe we believe everybody will know that it’s him right so the details of how to dot the i or cross the t are not as important now as they were back in the apostolic record yes that’s the kind of the whole premise of yes you know it’s actually um we’re going to be building up ways to uh more or less challenge the yeshuan approach this year um setting it up as i don’t know i don’t know how to describe it but like almost like a socratic dialogue platform yeah making it where people bring their challenges and their questions
more easily rather than them just watching our content but um so this is our our working avenue to do that so we hope you really um give us your toughest questions here you can call and you can put it in the chat. And there’s a reason for that too, is religion doesn’t want to entertain questions.
It wants to give you answers. We want to entertain all questions as a means to keep what we are supposing to be alive, living, growing, changing, tested over time instead of a lockstep system of belief yes you ones are an open source that we want everybody to bring their content so that we can test it and see how it fits with what we’re what we tend to say definitely um we have a question here i wanted to just say that hopefully starting next week, we’ll have a better system for this where you’re seeing each other’s chat comments across the platform
because we have this going streaming across several platforms. So working on that. But Subjective Moralist asked, you guys believe that the laws of the first five books of the Bible remain a valid guide for life? I don’t. Yeah, I don’t either. I believe they provide an invalid, invalid guide for life, that the real guide is the Spirit.
The idea here, if you’re new, is that the Bible is a fulfilled a completely fulfilled material document where we can learn from it principally, but it does not apply materially or collectively today. But it’s just a guideline. I mean, guide for life. I guess you could read those and principally draw from them though sure but if it’s a guide for life then what was the need of a messiah to show that there that was insufficient to bring a person to real living the law only brought us like a school master
to understand our need for god so i disagree with it being a guide for life. Huh. He said that’s the normal emergent belief from Yeshuans. Why are you guys different? I don’t even know what a Yeshuan… We thought it was a new term, though. What does that mean? It’s a normal emergent belief from Yeshuans.
Is there an established group called yeshuans person in the chat let us know uh what you’re referring to we’re definitely call uh something very different than anything you’ve you’ve heard before and if we’re calling ourselves the same thing it’s by mistake it’s because we came up with that word on our own, not knowing someone else used it.
Okay, we have a text question here. Let’s hope our phones work today. I affirm Christ’s total victory. uh i affirm christ’s total victory how does denying full preterism negatively affect a believer’s walk and for anyone listening when i think this person is affirming our stance on total victory which is that christ completed everything that’s sin there isn’t more to be done on top of uh what christ promised right unlike what christianity actually asserts but right go ahead how does denying full part of risen negatively
negatively affect a believer’s walk well if i was a believer in a future return of christ and you and i really believe that and you wrote wrote and said, you don’t, it’s all fulfilled. Um, um, what I would do is I would say, well, um, if he hasn’t returned, then we have no basis because Paul links his return to the fulfillment of everything.
You have to have his return in place to believe that Christ fulfilled everything, because he’s not going to fulfill everything until he returns. So our eschatology is vital to what we teach in terms of how we do religion and how we believe and how it’s practiced practiced because it’s predicated off the idea that Christ has returned.
God is now all in all and all things have been put under his feet. If that’s not the case, it’s because he hasn’t returned. So it would negatively impact being a Yeshua. All right. Um, this, he just told us that this is Randy in York, Pennsylvania. Hey, I was on a mission there. I love York, Pennsylvania with all those York peppermint patties. Subjective moralist says the rough numbers show that there are 200,000 to 1.5 million people who call themselves Yeshuans worldwide.
million people who call themselves yeshuans worldwide i have i can you is there like a is there like a link to uh on the internet that like describes is it because they’re just using jesus real name because they’re jews they’re speaking hebrew or something no because there’s way more than that in the u.
s of christians i don’t yes you ends i don’t know i don’t know well if there is good job you’re calling them by the right name sure we’re not associated with them if just to simply answer your question but i am but to harken back to the or the basis of this question is do we believe in the pentateuch law we do not because paul said we’re dead to the law but clearly there’s a group called yeshuans that says that about that and they sound like messianic jews i see yeah and if they believe it so that’s how we’re getting confused. That would make sense. Interesting.
Yeah. That’s not what we are. Yeah. But we welcome them. Thank you, York Peppermint Patty guy, Randy. Yeah, two separate people going on here, just so you know. Randy and York is the one that asked, denying full preterism, how that negatively affects a believer’s walk. It, it also, I think it just limits their ability to see, understand, live freely.
And yeah, it’s, it doesn’t limit God being able to speak with them or something. Not at all. It just limits what they can really gain in this life. Yeah. And it can be used against you by a Biblicist. Because a Biblicist, if you don’t agree that Christ has returned, can get you and corner you with Scripture that makes you an inferior follower of Christ if he hasn’t returned? Yeah, I’m answering subjective moralists.
He said, yes, she wins is all of your screen. That’s why I’m talking about that. I’m just saying that we are not, we came up with that term or we thought we did. We are a very independent group. We don’t know one other person that calls himself a yeshuan. We thought we came up with that term or we thought we did. We are a very independent group. We don’t know one other person that calls himself a yeshuan.
We thought we came up with that term. That’s the name of our organization. I’d like like a Wikipedia link or something to know about this group or how you’ve learned about them. I’m pretty sure they’re Messianic Jews. Why else would they use the name Yeshua and believe in the law when I google yes you ends there’s a Facebook group the Facebook group my computer is going very slow group my computer is going very slow there’s lots of rules written on it um followers of yeshua the messiah of the bible can come to fellowship celebrate their faith testify request prayer
build the kingdom as one united body no one associated with this page thinks they are yeshua the messiah but surrender to him this is not a denomination even that that’s not us but even that isn’t yeah i don’t i’ve never heard of this group so shows you how much research we do into things he says let me well i thought we did like i i know but it’s his name it’s a name i mean there would be no reason why there wouldn’t be people who want to call him by his name yeah yeah no definitely they they’re saying they’ll find a link for what they’re citing from that’s kind
of cool that he brought us to this knowledge yeah that that will be fascinating to see once again how we use a term that someone else has already stained. Yeah. Honestly. It is his name, though. But Yeshua’s, like, to call, like, his name isn’t Yeshua. It’s Yeshua. Yeah. To call yourself a Yeshua, and it’s not even in the Bible.
Right. Like, it’s Christian even in the Bible right Chris like it’s Christian they called themselves Christian it’s a very different so I thought it was that makes sense hey Hayden on Instagram good to see you okay let’s get back to it’s a common name given it’s one of the names given to Jesus in Genesis yeah that’s that is why we’re calling ourselves that go to yeshuans.
faith that’s our website and you’ll see what we’re trying to do here it might might under maybe maybe it’s not clear enough yet, but okay. Some more questions here. Um, so there’s this one line of questions where the person said in first Timothy six, verse 16, it talks about how no one has seen or can see God. John one 18 says something similar.
You’ve read that today? No, 3.18 you read. However, in the Old Testament, it says that Moses sees God face to face. Is this not a contradiction? No. And it says, so if that’s true, that Moses claiming to see God’s face to face is a representation of God he was face to face with, could it stand to reason that Joseph Smith’s first vision has any legitimacy by the same reasoning? It would if Joseph Smith said that he, all he saw were the attributes of God, his light, his glory, his power. But that’s not what Joseph
Smith said. He said he saw God in a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s. And so he, by virtue of the way he defined his vision of God, puts himself in a realm way outside the biblical text. Yeah. Right. Also, from our position at least, there are ages across the Bible. So Moses was in an age and Joseph Smith is in an age.
And those have different like implications on how god perhaps different rules maybe yeah maybe that all like this is not a for sure but what we’re going off of um okay but i don’t see those as contradictory yeah no, no, no. Okay, sifting through comments. Does the Mormon church teach that God’s love is unconditional? No.
The Mormons teach his love is entirely conditional. I could probably bring up an apostle even saying that, and it may have been Packer who said it back in the day, but it was an apostle. And they clearly said, no, his love is absolutely conditioned. Yeah. Okay. Does God love us unconditionally? I would say God so loved the world that while we were yet sinners, he gave us his son.
So that sounds pretty unconditional to me. I would also cite Paul’s definition of love, that it never fails. It never endures all things. It bears all things. It hopes all things. It doesn’t end. God is love. God’s love never ends. Therefore, it has to be unconditional. The word unconditional, is that a biblical? This is my own question.
Like it’s a surmised word based on what we see in the Bible. Right. But I would also add one more thing to the unconditionality of his love he doesn’t unconditionally accept us he loves us but he doesn’t unconditionally accept us that’s predicated on our faith so he has done everything thing on our behalf unconditionally he’s paid for our sin whether we believe on him or not, all of it, but it’s still predicated on you deciding you will have faith in him. If you don’t, he says, that’s okay.
I love you and I’m calling to you, but you, you aren’t qualified because I’m only pleased by faith. Yeah. I, it, yeah. There’s so much that can be talked about with that because it seems like he does accept. It’s just that he lets us choose. So he’s doing the accepting. Yeah. We don’t want it. Right.
We’re doing the rejecting. Yeah. We are saying we will not. Yeah. Yeah. Would you agree? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Subjective moralist.
yeah would you agree yeah yeah um okay subjective moralists do you guys believe the flood story is real if so is your view it was local flood or worldwide flood well these things are not yes sure in doctrines that must be believed it’s just what each of us individually see i believe that the flood account better suits a geographical flood of a basin in the old world and all the animals and that’s how far humankind spread out and that was the whole world to them.
I don’t believe in a worldwide flood where all the animals of the earth were taken. Pangea was torn apart by the flood. Mount, the ark rested on Mount Ararak and then all the animals went back to their different countries. I do not believe that. Yeah. But again, it seems like you don’t you’ve never um like heard of us before and now we’re about subjective faith so we we have done a lot of study and provide that on our website but we believe everyone can believe how they want and that God’s working with them on their own separately.
And that answer was a subjective response from me. That’s all. Yeah. If you’re saying that each person gets to believe what they will, how can a person truly know what is real or not? This sounds more like more subjective than objective truth. Yeah.
Well, I believe we believe in and teach from a position of there being objective truth, but the owner and operator of it’s God. We are not God. So we, we see through a glass darkly. We don’t understand things perfectly. So our interpretation of his objective truth is very subjective. Your version of what you believe is different than mine. And that is always going to be the case because we’re all so different from different everything.
We are different. So it has to be subjective. The way you distinguish between what is right and what is wrong is by the fruit it produces. what is right and what is wrong is by the fruit it produces if the fruit is not love then you’re probably subjectively interpreting something about god wrongly yeah that um they say thanks for engaging i’m genuinely curious and that’s what this is for we’re really happy for the questions so thank you for it um the the thing that’s really hard about what we’re trying to articulate that gets
lost in like maybe just contemporary like ways of thinking is that we maintain both that objective truth is there and that, that, uh, we will not access it completely as individuals. And that’s where subjectivity comes in. And God contains that objective truth and is working with individuals at very different timescales and circumstances to make that known and that there will never be a collective way to articulate that or systematize it or anything. So that’s, that’s where we’re at. Sarah chimed in and said,
people already believe what they will. I think the difference here is no one is demanding people conform to a certain group, group or person’s beliefs. beliefs yeah that’s amen that is the hope we can’t tell you what god is or isn’t we can tell you what we believe god is or isn’t right which always may or may be wrong and is always subject to change yeah knowledge versus faith Yeah. Knowledge versus faith. All right. Again, they asked very nuanced, slightly different questions.
So does agape love mean unconditional love? Agape love, when you look at the through line of scripture, is selfless, sacrificial, and unconditional. So then agape love is unconditional love is that the question yeah yeah i think it is yeah um but that is something that we assert like as a it’s not literally in the bible it’s not literally verbatim in the bible but it is in the Bible through very minor asking questions about what the Bible says.
But like we’ll also say the Trinity is not in the Bible. But I don’t think that that is a reason to discount the Trinity. But I also don’t think it’s a reason to like we don’t think the Trinity is true. Right. But the first argument against it isn’t it’s not in the Bible you know because we say things also that aren’t in the Bible well the difference between making that comparison to the Trinity and to love is that love is defined by the Bible the Trinity is not defined by the Bible right yeah so yeah there are like a lot of arguments against the Trinity and the Bible.
Right. There are not any arguments against unconditional love. People would argue there are. Yeah, they would. They would say sharing the truth is a form of unconditional love. But the way you do it is what we’re talking about. Not the act of doing. yeah yeah it’s the way and that’s patient kind long-suffering all those things are the depictions of unconditional agape love right and agape love does have a definition and it seems like we make the jump to summarize all of those characteristics that it literally says as
unconditional, like mercy and patience. These are unconditional things. Because their very word suggests that there has to be a selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love behind the action. And I don’t know how to explain that any other way if you can tell me how that love is defined as being patient will that show me when patience is required yeah patience is when it there is not a condition on it like if there were conditions it wouldn’t be patient right yeah yeah yeah um so they keep going is it possible for humans to practice agape love absolutely yeah
yeah it’s when you do what god says whether you feel it yeah want to do it or not i i would go as far to say as it’s you might not even know god is saying it you might not but that compulsion to show agape love is god yeah for us yeah and like in a non-religious setting victor hugo uh you know here’s the interesting thing about like creators of uh of godly things through human ways victor hugo was a was a whoremonger it’s like all the pros all the whorehouseshouses in France shut down the day they celebrated his death.
He was known to be there, but he wrote a book called Les Miserables where he typifies the love of God in a way that transcends biblical knowledge. What was it? It’s when Jean Valjean actually stole silver from the priest, jean valjean actually stole silver from the priest and the priest when jean valjean was brought to his house by the police to be uh indicted jean val i mean the priest says here here’s more silver you forgot to take what else i gave you so the priest showed mercy in the face of being wronged that is agape love yes yeah okay um subjective moralists to shift real fast can
you give me an objective truth that is mind independent while also being demonstrable in reality we live in mind independent but also is demonstrable in the reality that we live in. Mind independent. So like outside of someone’s perception, like outside of subjectivity. Isn’t he saying inside? Mind independent.
Oh, it’s not mind dependent would be suggested our mind yeah so independent of the mind yeah i can give you one what is that um if you have your head removed from your body you will cease to live material laws that’s a material law you separate the head from the body you will without any connection you cease to live let us know if we’re reading your question right yeah see if that holds water you think that’s an objective truth i think that’s an objective truth because i don’t see how my mind can redefine it in any way and i mean materially live yeah yeah we articulate that
that’s what religion how we are separate from a religious group is that religion will assert those sort of material objective truths on to god and we aren’t saying that here we’re saying that is this world that is how this world functions and it’s just independent thing from what God is doing with us um individually so to some degree or but yeah that’s what we’re working through um but yeah right back I’m not sure if we answered that question correct okay let’s move forward do you have any questions from this week no wanted to touch on no love to hear what people thought
of the two first two epiphany shows because we dropped all the major bombs on why we’ve done it relative to the faith and why we’ve done it relative to mormonism uh verse one was the faith at large verse i mean the second episode was to mormonism and we’re getting views but we don’t have many comments on it and i think it’s an important one there’s a couple comments someone said okay the long way where is yes you are in heaven okay where is heaven within you actually Christ said the kingdom of heaven the kingdom is within you not heaven itself so but I like that moment I guess yeah okay he said that would to the subjective objective law
that would be a law the situation would happen for all humans anywhere in the universe I’m looking for a truth I argue truth is subjective in all cases when it comes to mind independent situations truth only becomes objective and mind dependent on a subjective basis I think we might kind of agree sort of but I would counter because truth is only uh defined by us truth is not just something that lasts in this world which is the removal of the head truth i was talking about i think in heaven somebody could not have a head and exist so when
i say truth i mean truth that is eternal capital t does not that i think that’s what he’s actually saying too though is he is that way like when when I think through these things, I think of it that way too. Truth is in the realm of God. Yes. And it is not this world. No. And the way we talk about it is like those two realms, this world and the eternal realm.
So what you’re calling a law like yeah you can call that a law we’ll agree with you and it’s a law that it’s a truth of this world truth of this world right and there are the thing that we insist on is that there are separate realms there’s this realm and that realm this realm has the laws that realm has the truth right so like the laws here can realm has the truth. So like.
The laws here can be good, but it doesn’t make them true. So his question though is you can’t ever get to truth without subjectivity. And I think we’d agree with that. Like God is understood subjectively. I think I can agree with that in our realm. Sure. That has to be true. From our realm. Yeah.
We do believe that that truth that’s out there is objective yeah but it’s a we subjectively believe that yes like we have no other means you to believe that so i would agree with him yeah um yeah let us know if that makes sense i I think we’re saying, I think you’re probably saying it to a further degree a little bit than we are, but, um, SOS, I can’t read what your name is. Ministries. Hello everyone. Hey, welcome.
Just so you know, we’re spread across platforms right now and your chat might not be coming in to many people but we’re consolidating them next week uh he says we only have this world and the universe to look at without other universes or worlds to investigate we’re just guessing and don’t know for sure we also agree agree completely but we we do have a faith beyond that that it is there that there is something but it is faith it’s not a knowledge yeah and that’s we distinguish that it is not a known you cannot say you know god exists we cannot say it we i mean you could say it but you cannot say that with any validity of certainty
if you’re operating in the same realm that all humans operate on, a realm of faith. That’s what makes it really hard. It’s really hard. The longer I go, the harder that is to believe without the knowledge. We have things that we claim, but it’s still not knowledge. We have things that we claim, but it’s still not knowledge.
It’s our embracing evidences we believe is knowledge. We believe those evidences point to one thing. Right. Other people might see those pointing as another thing. Absolutely. We’ll also assert that that’s their own faith. That’s right. That’s also faith. That’s why we don’t put faith in dogmatic doctrinal demanded positions yeah um someone on your most recent the most advanced fair explanation of mormonism you’ve never heard video is wrote akashi record casey yeah what is that the Akashi record I don’t know I was going to ask
Larry senior why they call it the Akashi record Akashic Akashic record but that’s what Casey uh Edgar Casey put all of his recordings in he calls it now why he calls it that weird name i don’t know but interesting let’s see somebody was trying to say that what we were sharing there was edgar casey like wow that’s actually kind of funny um akashic record popular popularized by mystics like edgar casey now seem to be as a spiritual resource for healing and understanding life’s patterns could be if it and I would suggest just really from my own perspective
that that is more like the Jungian collective record the Akashic record is the, a Jungian collective of human spirit of man stuff and not a sacred book that God has for healing. And that’s where I differentiate, uh, the inspirations that Casey had and Smith had there, or you or I have from revelations from God.
God’s revelation was his son done period. Yeah. Very different. Yeah. from god god’s revelation was his son done period yeah very different yeah um uh subjective moralist so are we agreeing that faith is what people rely on when it comes to religion and god there is no knowledge or truth that god is real based on the definition of faith i I would say that, yeah. Yeah, me too. I think we’re in agreement on that.
And we do have that faith and do everything to teach it, but are trying to get religions and religious people to admit that it’s not knowledge. Yeah, and to stop debating with scientists over knowledge because it’s all just everybody postulating what they believe is true i also think that scientists same thing faith like that so that’s where maybe you’re in a disagreement with us they go off of laws as much as religion does theorems in the end their connection of law to truth is a faith that’s right that’s really what’s going on it is um randy from york
do you believe that in 70 a.d jesus took his church in a bodily sense or was it a spiritual reality i think that he took his bride from the earth and in the twinkling of an eye she changed from being physical and material to being spiritual and immortal and i think that’s what happened in 70 a.d with the final destruction of all of the former age happening in about 134 AD.
Back to that Akashic thing, that’s Blatvatsky as well. Yeah, it’s all theosophy. Yeah. That’s why I tie them all together. Yeah, you do. Because they all have these insights, but I just can’t help but see them as coming from the spirit of man collective yeah and this person that said that’s that’s what you’re doing is not acknowledging your biblical reference to christ and that that isn’t like these people say it is god yeah like they say it’s god god like casey says it’s god doing these things you’re like it’s not
god no i’m saying it’s our spirit of man which is really powerful we’re made in god’s image we have imagination we have the living zeitgeist world guys that we operate by and these people like Casey and like Blavatsky and Jung and all of them, Smith, they had access to the spirit of man in the metaphysical sense.
Yeah. And it’s trippy. Yeah. That’s what, so that’s how you would distinguish yourself from religion and from mystics is that they all say it’s God. Yeah. They’re like, it’s not God. Yeah, that is what’s radical about this. Yeah. I think that person commenting also is saying that’s what Mormonism is.
Oh. I don’t see them saying that’s what you are. Yeah. Okay. Because we’re saying it’s the most advanced, fair explanation of Mormonism. It’s like akashi record like yeah oh okay like okay they’re just doing joseph smith’s doing but nobody is bringing this out in terms of mormonism they’re trying to say he was a prophet of god and yeah and we’re trying to say that if you take the biblical record seriously he was the last prophet. He was the final. He was the truth.
I am the way, the truth, like this other guy’s talking about. So we have no other need for heavenly objective truth. We’ve got it in him and what he did. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. You answered Randy’s question on the spiritual or body resurrection. Or took his church. Yeah, I answered it, I think. Okay. Sorry, I’m doing too many things at once.
own spiritual transformation from going from the material, which goes into the ground to the physical, uh, spiritual regeneration, which God gives them. So there’s no more waiting judgment. It happens immediately at death. Okay. It’s so, it’s so different from what everyone on social media just… Social media is my point of reference right now while I post videos, but it’s wild. People really disagree with that.
They really do. They’ve been clinging to it. But if they want to take the Bible, it can’t happen until he returns. And there’s a whole bunch of wiggle-waggle in that. Yeah. Okay. We have 17 minutes left if you want to call in you can 220-222-4686 or HOTM SOS Ministries said until those laws change I’m sorry I don’t know what that’s in reference to so let me know what you meant by that do you recall until those laws change. I’m sorry, I don’t know what that’s in reference to. So let me know what you meant by that.
Do you recall until those laws change? The laws of Deuteronomy? The Ten Commandments? No, it was later. I don’t know. Let us know what you meant by that, what that was in reference to. Okay. On the Adams Road video wow that’s an old one yeah people are still finding that one a lot um just to comment I’m not shocked as our relationship to God so precious that we as sinners must seek prayers from our brothers and sisters God will not share his glory I just like to caution.
We have a call here, so let’s take that first. Hey, you’re on the air. Hey, this is Subjective Moralist. Oh. Hey, awesome. Glad you’re calling in. I figured this would be more efficient. So, yeah, give me just a small breakdown of what you guys believe, because I’m not fully understanding.
Okay, so essentially what we believe is that the biblical record tells us everything God did in and through his nation, and then his Son, and then the Spirit of Christ, to reconcile the world to himself. We believe that we have spiritually returned to the garden that our first parents ruined for us. And every human being is in that garden spiritually, not materially, choosing how they want to live.
They have the spirit of Christ in them. That’s what’s returned us all unconditionally to that garden state. And everyone is choosing whether to seek out and find the light of Christ within them or to bury it and live according to their own will and ways, which is akin to either eating from the tree of life or eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which leads to death.
Finally, to summarize it, we believe that everything before Christ has been victoriously placed under his feet that we read about in the biblical narrative. Hell, Satan, death, afterlife punishment, etc., separation from God, and that everything since Christ God has allowed to further his work and growth in bringing all souls to him by and through faith. That’s pretty much what we stand on, unless Delaney has more to add.
I would just add that in terms of what we’ve been talking about with you, that idea is that Christ, it became the merging of like this world and the eternal for once and for all, which is why we talk about subjectivity now it’s like individuals and god and that’s it and this world is this world materially and the world itself is approached subjectively and that faith bridges the gap between us and god now so everything he just said is a have faith in, it’s not a knowledge of that stuff, but that’s what it’s based on. Gotcha. Okay. Um, cool. No, there was a lot there. Thank you. Um,
so I guess the, the, the two questions I have been, it doesn’t sound like you guys believe the Bible is inerrant. Like it’s not word for word true. Am I, am I understanding that right? It’s not word for word true. Am I understanding that right? Yeah, we believe that it was word for word true when transmitted, but that’s a waste of breath to even say it because we don’t have any of those records of when it was transmitted.
So since that time, we believe there are errors, but they aren’t significant so as to lead somebody astray. Okay, to follow up on that, are you guys of the belief that Jesus was a real person, that he died on the cross, crucified by Romans, and then rose from the grave three days later? Do you guys follow that? Yeah, absolutely.
We believe the narrative as closely as it can be discerned in the Scripture. So we do believe that literally Christ was a God with us in the form of a man who did actually die for the sin of the world and resurrected on the third day. And we do believe that that basis is the basis for everything. Okay.
So again, my again my next yeah you can disagree no no it’s okay i i think there’s evidence but i think there’s different there’s different levels of evidence yeah and what i mean by that is i think when we look i’m going to speak generally i’m not going to try to strawman anyone’s argument. I think, and I agree with you, we don’t have the direct texts to really see if it’s true.
So what I see people often do is they’re going to kind of collect everything that the Bible says. And the singular message is, this is who Jesus was. This is the miracles that he performed, this is what happened, etc. But what I often look for that I think the Bible’s lacking is strong evidence. And by strong evidence, I mean there’s no direct eyewitnesses, there’s no direct eyewitnesses. There’s no direct documents. And virtually everything that I see in the Bible are claims and very, very strong assertions. So do you guys fall in the category of like the first one or the latter? Just out of curiosity, if you agree with my take on the different evidences.
just out of curiosity, if you agree with my take on the different evidences. Yeah, I think, A, you’re right on the different evidences. And I believe that evidences kind of unfold on us, depending on our mindset and what we are seeking to find. Therefore, we get what we want. So I think that those who find a lot of evidences as and they call it knowledge from the bible that’s what they’re seeking for and that’s what they want other people who have more scrutiny and are testing it a little differently the same i actually literally believe we are all independent
seeking god in the way that we want and are finding what we want and we will be held accountable for those answers. Perfect. My last question then would be, so if I understood everything you said and one of the last things you said were it’s people, their mind states, what they’re searching for the state of mind that they’re in.
If, what they’re searching for, the state of mind that they’re in. If it’s contingent on that and it’s up to all of us to kind of go down those roads, it kind of goes back to the question I asked in chat. Like, how do we know? Like, I know we kind of say we don’t know, but some of us hear messages. Some of us don’t.
Some of us get revelations. Some of us don’t. Some of us become Muslim, Buddhists. And I think what you guys were saying to tie it all together was all of these people kind of get us to God. But then I hear you guys referencing it back to the Bible, which is an indicator of the Abrahamic religion or Christ. So here’s where I get, here’s where I kind of get lost on it.
So if you could just help me with that, that would be great. Yeah. The way we see it is in and through what we believe, again, we believe is the evidence through the scriptural narrative that Christ had the victory to the point that even before he ascended, he said, all power has been given to me in heaven and earth. We take that on faith that it was true.
And then we base everything else off those declarations being true. And we suggest that in his victory, he has allowed all other things to prosper by and through his power, though decorated in different ascended masters and different people. So if Hinduism leads a Hindu to faith in a higher power, a God, and it leads them to love as Christ taught that means selflessly sacrificially and unconditionally we see them as having the spirit of the victorious Christ and their dogmas and their doctrines not mattering in the
least one more one more question just popped up because what you said just resonated me when I stopped being a follower of any faith. So I’m a skeptic. I’m an atheist agnostic. I ask questions. I’m curious about everything. So the question I have then now, based on what you said, is me as a skeptic, it sounds like I can do everything that you guys do, or a Christian, or another Christian, or whomever.
What makes it to where I need a faith of some sort to get to this eternity based on your beliefs? Okay, I can do everything you guys do, but not have faith. You can, and that’s just such an insightful question. See, the way we say it is without really recognizing or discovering, and we could be wrong on this, the Spirit of Christ in us, you, whether you believe or not, me, believe or not, in us, that Spirit teaches us how to love in ways that transcend our flesh so as an atheist or a christian or a buddhist we can only love insofar as our flesh will let us but if and when we come to acquiesce our will and ways which are broken to his ways, which by the spirit are profoundly loving in a selfless,
sacrificial and unconditional way. That is how you’ll know whether you accept him by faith or not. If he’s in you that you love as he did. So that’s what I say to anybody who claims anything about truth or knowledge or wisdom or God, how do you love? What do you do if someone punches your mom in the face? What do you do if someone rips you off in business and makes you close your industry? How do you respond to that in your heart? And it’s by the heart angle that I assess other people’s stated faith. It’s not by their doctrines or dogmas, rejection of God or acceptance of God.
It’s by their love. So if I were to, let’s say, go in on your examples, I would argue like the average person, and not to get into like the neurology behind it, but if I saw a child being harmed or a dog being harmed, I think it’s instilled in us. Some people will call it God. I think I can explain it through evolution.
But I think generally speaking, when we see well-being being reduced in another human being, I argue it doesn’t take a belief in a deity. It’s in us. It’s like we know what it’s like to be hungry. So if I see someone else hungry, if I feed them, it’s me increasing the well-being and that can go across any sort of animal or anything.
And if that’s the case, I would say that you would say you’re making that choice. And I would say if you have a love that transcends your flesh, your will, your desires, I would say that’s God. We can disagree. You can say I interpret it as myself making the decision through evolutionary processes. I’m not going to be your judge. I don’t care what your claims are.
They may be true so for me no i wouldn’t call it altruism because um what the kind of love we’re talking about is not empathetic love that when you see an animal getting hurt you can identify with it we’re talking about having mercy on things that do not deserve your mercy and i think the reason they are sacrificing part of ourselves for the betterment of something else that’s that’s us saying okay like this isn’t going to benefit me like i’m gonna do for like like my wife is sick for you or let’s say my wife i don’t know you get the example i do
um and i don’t want to belabor this or go in circles on it no no this is yeah we think you’re right but you’ve labeled it altruism we’ve labeled it agape love you’ve labeled it something that humans are capable of doing and they are but i’m saying that humans have a limit to it and I’m saying Christ and his love giving his life for something lesser because his life was worth so much more that was the ultimate altruistic act so yeah I you can call it altruism but I call it the Spirit of Christ that took me who would rejoice
and laugh at a dog being beaten before you You see, we’re not all like you. I wouldn’t care if a dog was being beaten, but it was in and through the different change that I occurred when I discovered Christ in me that enabled me to see his love for me first and therefore the necessity for his love to come out from me now as a disciple.
But I agree with you, brother. You might have that without him. And he even said, I didn’t come for the healthy. I came for the weak. So no problem. You could be a Yeshua as an atheist, agnostic atheist, who believes in the power of selfless love calling it altruism or not and you’re welcome that’s what we’re trying to say forget the dogmas and the doctrines we want people who are looking in faith and love you might not fit the faith part but you do the love apparently thank you good deal um okay well i i think i called when you said you guys have like 20 minutes
left um i’d love to call back the next time you guys are doing a show if i’m if i’m welcome back to call love it if that’s okay when’s the next time you guys uh always we do this we from now on we will be doing this every sunday at 2 p.m mountain time we’re We’re in Utah. So this same time every Sunday.
And we welcome this kind of dialogue. We especially want people who differ with us and bring something new so that we can sharpen our stuff and change our stuff where it proves to be wrong. All right. Well, I will call next week. I appreciate, again, your engagement and your time. It was awesome. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, bye.
You guys have a good day. We had another call in that time. So we can take your call if you call back right now. I feel bad. We’ve got a few minutes. We can go a little bit longer. Yeah. Because calls are worth their weight in gold. Thank you. Kind. I don’t even know. Did we get his name? No, he gave us his title.
Moralist. We’ll call you that. Thank you for. Let’s just call him the moralist. Is that what it is? Subjective moralist. Subjective moralist. I really do like that. Someone said really good questions and I agree. That was really helpful. We got one text question here hey so with the change in age if you made a list of the seven deadly sins for women what would they be like i just don’t see your average woman struggling with lust or greed etc etc i see i definitely struggle with lust and greed in my
own ways well there you go um why would women manifest different are you talking just about gender differences yeah like women have struggles with i yeah maybe i mean lust isn’t always necessarily sexual sexual can be for the things of this world materialism i don’t know it seems like a subjective moralist is jason nice to meet you jason um well anyway to answer the question if you made a list of the seven deadly sins for women is there a i don’t think i could do i think i could do seven deadly sins for humans. Yeah.
Because men and women, we’re very much alike and we’re very different, but it’s predicated on how we’re made up. Yeah. Yeah. But you do identify a shift of masculine to feminine. So does that have any implications? Well, if you want to break it down in terms of masculine and feminine traits, and therefore what traits men and women need to work on in a general sense, masculine men need to work on their sexual lust, their lust for war, argument, power, dominion, control, mansplaining uh arrogance all of that things of this world women seem to
need to deal more with things like uh envy um just seem to it’s funny i as a woman i guess i see all this seven doubly sins applicable, but just in different ways. Yeah. Like women are, women will want the admiration and attention of as many men as they can possibly get, whether they’re married or not.
Like they want all men, they want to be the one that every man loves. Every man likes, you know, that’s a greedy kind of thing. It’s so funny, but that is so true that a woman wants attention. Yes, attention. Like attention is great. Like those are, you know, it’s not, nothing is all women. Nothing is all women. Nothing is all men.
But in terms of like classic masculinity and femininity, I think all those seven deadly sins can be applied. Yeah, I think that’s a really good one because when you look just generally at a normal woman versus a normal man, women just want to be the subject of adoration. That’s why they have lashes and hair products and all the different things that women love.
Our little granddaughter just loves the things of women. Yeah. Sparkly dresses. It seems more common for a man to be okay with his wife loving him. Yeah. And a woman wants her husband and all of her friends’ husbands to love her. But men also would like to have all the husband’s wives love them. Yeah.
Just in a different way. Different types of greed. I think women would hoard as much of the food for their children if they could and money whatever different types of different types lust and greed and gluttony and yeah pride sorry i probably jumped in on your answer there no you didn’t i thought it was good well i thought those were good conversations that we had with uh jason and the other fellow and yeah fantastic fantastic. Thank you for calling.
Thank you for… Oh, maybe that person’s calling back. Yep, we caught you. Okay. One more call. It’s 3.04. Hey, you’re on the air. Hi, Sean. Sean, it’s Billy from New York, man. How’s it going? Hey, Billy. Hi. Delaney and Sean here with your brother. Hey, Delaney. What’saney and Sean here with your brother.
Hey, Delaney. What’s going on? Hey. I really appreciate that last question. I thought it really helped me think about something, so I thought it was really well put. Me too. A lot of his ideas. And it kind of helped maybe articulate some of my ways I’m trying to to think about this and so my question for you is like if you have an atheist worldview and you have the yeshuan worldview and both are able to accomplish the same things per se they both have like similar explanatory power what would make
someone go say you know what i should be a yeshuan rather than an atheist you want to try to answer that one well i i sean will answer it better and i’m sure you don’t but when um jason was talking i was just thinking about the difference between agape love that is channeled through a source outside yourself versus agape love channeled from a source inside yourself and christ like you can only ever get the certain kind of agape love that christ did through christ through an outsourcing and that’s the that’s how i always think christians are different
is that there’s your identity that you have to maintain and you have to sacrifice always and you’re doing both at the same time and um that’s what’s so hard about it it’s not a loss of self like the easterners and it’s not a it comes from me it’s like somewhere in between and i still can’t figure out how to articulate it but what would you say well i i really like that sorry sean i really like that because ultimately i know like what i lean into is ultimately we’re not depending on ourselves to generate love i believe the love like we’re
almost like tilting the mirror in the way the is reflected down, and we just reflect that love out. And so our source that we go to draw from is not trying to, like, conjure feelings of love within us. It’s through the Spirit of God. And I could, you know, I could be wrong about this, but this is just my belief that this is really what empowers us, is that we continually go and try to live in the Spirit.
So that’s just my perspective. And so in agreement with both of you, I think to our listener Jason, what we can say, and maybe Jason can too, I don’t know his religious experience, but I have been without the love of Christ flowing from me like the vine to the branches, and I have been with the love of the power of Christ flowing through me like a vine to the branches and i have been with the love of the power of christ flowing through me like a branch from the vine and the difference is is tangible so that’s the only i’m
like the blind man i’m blind i can see that’s all i can say i used to love thinking i was doing a good job of it but when the power source the energizer rabbit of christ came into me the love ability and capacity has blown up beyond belief of what i thought i was conjuring up in myself that’s how subjectively this faith is yeah all right cool i i love it that’s it yeah good All right, cool. I love it.
That’s it. Yeah, good. All right. Thanks, Billy. Thanks, Billy. Catch you later. Thanks. Great calls today. Yeah, I think the—because it’s a struggle. Because I think if Jason were to join the Eshuans as an atheist or agnostic, he would be eternally welcome. But I think we would always butt up against the discussion of what do you do with when you fail in it? Because love, while like you said, the way I would tell in someone else is if they’re loving, it’s like, we’re not telling that in someone else.
It’s like, how do you deal with the fact that you will, like you will fail. Yeah. You’ll always fail. We fail. And that’s at the root of why we need Yeshua. Someone who did it perfectly, who can answer and like still love us after we fail. And I am more than personally willing to admit to Jason that it is a crutch for me.
And I have no hesitation to say it’s based off faith that I choose. So I am not going to ever claim that he has an inferior approach because it’s his approach and it’s between him and his maker or non-maker. And and we just our job is to only love him as he is it’s not to convince him and the world and we are not changed eternally by doing that love no like altruism is a law where like your fit you cannot be altruistic and you’re failing to live up to that law the agape love is like i’m never gonna love i’m gonna do my best or like like billy said a mirror yeah a mirror i love that mirror we reflect his light yes yeah and
part of that problem is when we don’t then then what comes into our minds from what I’ve experienced is pride. Yeah. That’s what at the root of it is humility, which is where we come to the Yashuan definition is humility because it’s not, you’re not the source. That’s what humility is. And Jason might say, well, that’s altruism, that’s myth-making and that’s fantasy.
And Jason might say, well, that’s altruism, that’s myth-making, and that’s fantasy. And that’s fine. It’s fine. To me, it does make a difference conceptualizing it. That different conception of it makes a very big difference to me. But if it doesn’t to you, that’s fine. Yeah, I look forward to talking more.
I’d love to put Billy and Jason and the other man, you and and i on the same phone and to talk through some of these things that would be great yeah okay thanks everyone for listening love ya love ya see you next