I haven't done a whole deep dive into this text that I stumbled upon when reading my Bible this morning, but it seems to mirror this "two powers in heaven" idea that we see during the 2nd Temple period, or at least it seems to be something similar. Please let me know if anyone knows about this reference, or if anyone else has commented on it before: In 1 Kings 19:9-14, Elijah is in the wilderness, after running away from Queen Jezebel, after she ordered the death of Elijah. Elijah makes his way to a cave after the angel of Yahweh gives him food and water. The text then says: "Then the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He answered, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away.” (1 Ki 19:9–10, NRSVue) Notice here how, when Elijah is describing the situation, very explicitly to "the word of the Lord", Elijah says "...for the Israelites have forsaken YOUR covenant, thrown down YOUR altars, and killed YOUR prophets with the sword." So, we can see here that one "subject" asks Elijah a question, and Elijah responds to that subject, attributing the covenant, altars, and prophets to that same subject. The text, however, doesn't stop there: Then (very importantly) the word of the Lord tells Elijah to "...go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." We could derive a similar 2 Powers motif from this part alone, but I think there is even stronger support if we continue. Then Elijah hears and sees a great wind, an earthquake, and a great fire, but the text says that the Lord was not in any of them. The Lord was, however, in the "...sound of sheer silence." Now, interestingly, the exchange between Elijah and the LORD is the exact same exchange that we see between the word of the LORD and Elijah: What are you doing here, Elijah?” He answered, “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword."

I know that these forums are usually for announcements, discussions of research findings, and even just input on a specific topic. Still, I was also thinking, because we have SO MANY content creators in here, including Apollos, IP, Than, and of course Tim. I wanted to ask some questions about those who have experience doing live calls (specifically from platforms like TikTok, and YouTube). 1. How do you know when you are ready? This is something I think about all the time when wanting to start going live on TikTok and other platforms: I have the means and the access; I just don't know if I am ready for "the smoke". I talk in Discord chatrooms all the time about complex topics and feel confident with most people whom I encounter there, but how do I know when I am ready for live? 2. How should you react when you don't know something (and an important clarifier), and the guest is trying to make you feel not qualified for knowing something? Not knowing something and just admitting it, and just ending that portion of the conversation, is one thing, because that's just humility. It's a complete other thing when you have "influence," and you are live, and a guest is making you look as if you are "cooked," "baked," or not qualified just for knowledge gapping you. This isn't a problem for me, because I know this is just untrue, but for an audience that has been primed to be very reactionary to this type of content, it might be a different story. How should I respond when that accusation is made? That's basically it lol. Any feedback or thoughts from anyone will be much appreciated!

If you’ve been on the internet for any significant period of time, you’ve come across creators, comments, and debates where someone throws around the phrase “that’s a bad answer” or “that doesn’t answer the problem.” But for whatever reason, no one has stopped to ask: what do we mean by “good answer”? This has always baffled me. If both parties (assuming good intent) desire to be as objective as possible, then why has this notion of “a good answer” not been unpacked or precisified? It seems like the most obvious and fundamental step to take. And yet, mainstream apologetics never stops to first provide clarity. Here’s what we don’t want: a good answer being one where the person receiving the answer feels satisfied. Why? Because that turns something objective into something psychological. If our goal is to track the truth, then why is our litmus test for rationality someone’s psychological state, rather than the merit of the reasons given? That is clearly not the right way to go. Ultimately, we don’t care about the psychology of answers, but the epistemology of answers. Epistemology concerns anything to do with giving reasons for a belief. In apologetics, epistemology is the cornerstone of what we do. So the question becomes: what is the right epistemology of answers? And to that, we turn to a fun little concept called “ad hocness.” You’ve probably heard this term used a lot. “That’s ad hoc!” someone declares, as though the rest of the discussion is now moot. However, there’s quite a bit to say about this concept, and it’s much more nuanced than many make it out to be. Ad hocness occurs when the explanation given to save the truth of one’s belief(s) cannot be ascertained from the principles within that person’s already-held framework. In other words: when resisting having one’s belief(s) defeated, if what’s appealed to is not already expected within their system, it’s said to be ad hoc. Now, you can already see how most who throw around the term do not use it in this rigorous of a manner. Keep note of that.

Hey all! Unfortunately, I have to last-minute cancel today’s Q&A due to unforeseen circumstances. We will back on next week 🔥 Thank you for understanding 🙏🏽

The most common reply to arguments for a high Christology is an appeal to divine delegation, or agency. A Christian might say something like, "Jesus calmed the storm in Mark, who but God can do that?" The dissenter replies, "That's because Jesus was given divinely authorized power, just as Moses was when he split the Red Sea. You wouldn't call Moses God, would you?" At first glance, the symmetry seems accurate. But look beneath the surface, and a serious problem emerges. What the dissenter is really doing is anchoring their interpretive framework to adjacent Jewish agency texts, passages featuring mediatorial figures such as prophets, angels, and messengers, or even inanimate objects like the ark of the covenant. The goal is to draw a parallel between Jesus and figures who mediated the presence of YHWH without ever being YHWH. The trouble is that no such parallel actually works in totality. Now you might be thinking, "But doesn't Jesus carry out divine prerogatives, just as those other figures did?" Yes, He does, but that's a distraction from the real point of contention. The real issue is what I'll call the overextension problem. The overextension problem: Agency-only models use Jewish agency parallels to explain more than those parallels can bear. They can account for how an authorized agent represents YHWH, but they cannot, on their own, explain why Christ personally occupies the YHWH-only subject-position. That subject-position turns on something I'll call identity-emphasis. Identity-emphasis: the way a text signals which figure is being made the focal bearer of divine significance in a given passage. How do we know this is the crux? Simple: in every proposed parallel, whatever mediates YHWH's presence and authority never retains an identity of its own, it functions purely as a channel for YHWH's speech and action. So here's the logic of the agency-only model: YHWH commands → the human agent obeys and signifies the act → YHWH completes it. Take Moses at the sea. He stretches out his hand, but it is YHWH who drives the waters back: