Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. If you are interested and want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 8772072276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call if you don't mind.

We have five open lines. I'm going to do a little bit of hate mail today because it's a hate mail Friday. I enjoy it. I was reading some hate mail in preparation and I got a couple that are pretty good.

I got a kick out of a wand. It made me laugh. So I'm going to do that. If you're new to the show, we do apologetics, the defense of the Christian faith. So what I do is answer questions, difficult questions on the Bible, doctrine, things like that.

That reminds me. I did the study on Philippians last night and I do not know what's going on with the video. I'm going to be working on it this week, trying to get things better. I know people are concerned about that.

A lot of pixilation. I'm not sure what's up. But I'll work on it. Nevertheless, also, I'm going to be starting next week, Thursday night, Bible study. I'm going to be starting on the doctrine of the Trinity in depth. When I say in depth, I mean I'm going to be introducing new concepts and some stuff. It's not going to be light. It'll explain stuff, but I'm going to be going in through a series of things on the doctrine of the Trinity. So it'll be a challenge for a lot of people.

The paragraph I've been developing on the doctrine of the Trinity is 450 words long. And so it'll be interesting. All right. There you go.

That's that. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 8772072276. And I think what I am going to do here is get on to some of the heat mail because for those of you who might be new, just might be new and say, well, what do you mean, hate mail? Well, as a Christian apologist, I tell people that they're wrong about certain things and certain churches are wrong and stuff like that, according to scripture, and people don't like that. And I get all kinds of stuff. So here's one of them.

I like this one. It's a nice one. And it says, to whom it may concern, this website is downright libel on what is said about the Catholic faith. And I urge you to take it down or have a disclaimer that it's not true or you'll be sued, period, for libel. And you will not win because the last 100 who posted this garbage lost as well. And so I urge you ever did this garbage to take it down because knowingly using false material is immoral. And you lose in court for heretical offensive material and the facts that you withhold is cowardice, offensive and heretical.

And this organization should be ashamed of itself. Have a nice day. That was all one sentence. OK. And when someone writes me something like that where it's not very well written, not to mock them about that, but come on, it's a run on sentence that's not punctuated. And then they just say, oh, have a nice day. So basically it said I was a liar deceiving people, but have a nice day. It's really kind of interesting how people are.

And that's just one of the hate mails that I get. And, you know, OK, that's nice. Here's another one on the word Trinity. Because I wrote an article, the word Trinity is not in the Bible.

And guess what? It's not. Now, that doesn't mean that Trinity is not true, but the word itself is not true or is not there. So anyway, this person says in this article, every scripture you cite references up to two or three distinct entities that you somehow believe is one God.

No, I don't believe in different entities. That's not what the Bible teaches either. Anyway, he goes on, even the scripture in John that says I and the Father are one is still referring to two beings. It does not say I and the Father are one God which, if they were one God, then stating so would be essential. You know, this is interesting because I've often wondered why are things written in the Bible in such a way that people like that can easily misread it.

And, you know, the answer I came up with, I told this to someone once, another person said that's what I think, too. And the answer is it's not written with super clarity and basic statements like the one God, three distinct, simultaneous, co-eternal persons. But I think it might be written so that those who don't have eyes to see will not see and those who don't have ears to hear will not hear. That they don't understand the truth of who God is. And so they decide what would be essential in the scriptures.

They decide how things ought to be. And arrogance is horrible. And so it makes me wonder.

Nevertheless, he goes on, do this. Read the Gospel of John and mark every scripture that defines Christ's relationship with God. I record a record by John of Christ's ministry certainly would have an accurate description of all his relationship Christ has with his Father.

Not necessarily. See, all his relationship, well, we don't know how many aspects of relationship Jesus and God the Father would have. And to say it must have all of them is just non-founded.

People say things like this and then they build a case often on the things that are not founded. He goes on. He, that's Christ, describes himself as being the Son of God, doing the work of he who sent him less than and different from the Father, the servant who is less than the Master, also stating that you have neither seen nor heard God. Now, I know what verses this guy is talking to. And unfortunately, this guy doesn't understand the context, doesn't know what's going on, doesn't have any answers, but that's okay. Anyway, he says after you have marked about 100 scriptures, you'll begin to realize that Nicene Creed is wrong. Oh, man.

Fabricated by politicians and scholars for political gain and several thousand people were killed who would not buy into the Christian concept of God. Where does this guy get this stuff? People make this up. I tell you, I've been in lots of discussions with people and they'll say something like that, you know, did it for political gain.

I go, really? How do you know? Can you get a documentation for that? Well, it's commonly understood. Well, no, I've never heard that. What's a documentation that you have that you can make that assertion? Oh, man, you're not supposed to ask questions like that. You're only supposed to believe what they say.

Yeah, therefore it's true. So, you know, stuff like that and, you know, it's interesting. Okay, let's try another one. Now, folks, I've got to warn you about this one.

This one you've got to pay attention to. This is great, okay. It says a call to all spiritual religious leaders worldwide for urgent action. This message is for all who consider themselves to be the servants of I Am, the All, Allah, Yahweh, the great white spirit, the supreme being, the almighty, the super consciousness, God, guardian of divinity, as spiritual and religious leaders in their communities from all systems, sects, creeds, beliefs, and denominations, and from anywhere in the world.

Please pass this on to everybody. I'm going to kick out of that because they make these grandiose statements of all these false gods and all kind of stuff, throw the true god in there, and then tell me, hey, pass this on to everybody. Oh, okay, yeah, I just have emails for all people all over the world, you know, spiritual leaders, they just happen to trust a guy named Slick and, you know, I have that. He goes on, he says, all people who are yearning for true freedom with living in safety, prosperity, peace, and harmony under perfect divine law should peacefully stand up and be counted in the united front for the declaration of the year of jubilee. Yeah.

In the jubilee year, all debts have to be canceled, followed by a redistribution of God's land to earth equally back to all inhabitants thereof. You know, it's just time to rub your forehead and shake your head, you know. But yeah, so that's interesting. Let's see, I read your articles on gay marriage harming society. Yeah, and actually there are statistics for that in disease, in medical costs, in broken relationships, yeah, there's all kind of statistics, but you'd never hear about them, but I've got them.

I need to update them, but I've got them on CARM. He goes on, I would like to inform you that your point of view is disgusting. Now, that's interesting because he personally doesn't like it. Now, I think homosexuality is disgusting.

I do. That's just my opinion. Are you entitled to that opinion? Of course I am.

Well, maybe not. If you're a leftist, then I'm not entitled to my opinion, but they are. Yeah, the hypocrisy. Anyway, he goes, I generally don't pay attention to rubbish like this and really waste my time with closed-minded people. I'm closed-minded, okay, but my view is disgusting, which means he's closed-minded to my view, but I'm the one who's closed-minded and I'm the one who's guilty. It is small-minded people or small-minded points of view. I always wondered what a small-minded point of view is. What's a small mind?

You know, australopithecine, entropostasone? What, my cat? I don't know. What's a small-minded? Anyway, apparently I have a small mind that make innocent people take their lives because you don't accept them for what they are. Oh, I'm supposed to accept them for what they are? That's it? So I guess the pedophile, the murderer puts except them for what they are?

Just do that? Oh, no, man. Anyway, it goes on.

Let's see, I get to the one that I was liking. That made me laugh. Oh, yeah, here's one that made me chuckle when I first read it. All right. Are your reviews of other faiths written by a 10-year-old's mentally retarded person? I like that one.

I thought, hey, it's pretty good. If you're going to insult somebody, that's how you do it. Okay?

He goes on. Is this seriously the way you try and convince people of Christianity? No wonder people leave Christianity in masses. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Lying is a sin, Jesus will start to cry. Now, that's a sentence. Lying is a sin, Jesus will start to cry. It's got a hyphen in the middle. It's one sentence.

You know, I'd look at that person and go, wait a minute. So lying is a sin, Jesus will start to cry. Can you explain that relationship with those things?

Oh, it's obvious. Okay. There are a lot of contradictions.

It depends on which Gospel you read and when exactly did Jesus die. Yeah, these are just basic stuff. A lot of times what people do is they go to these websites that just have these alleged difficulties and they just recite them and they don't do any thinking or anything like that. Hey, but there's a little bit of entertaining stuff for some hate mail. Here's some more.

I read some more. I'll get to that after some callers. Let's get to Anthony from Virginia. Anthony, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt. I heard you talking about the Trinity a little bit there during your hate mail session. And it got me wondering, how does God require someone to believe something that is logically incomprehensible? There's no way the human mind can rationally understand concepts like the Trinity and Jesus Christ's divine and human nature. So how can that be a central doctrine? Do you believe that God has always existed?

Yes. Can you comprehend that? I believe I can fully comprehend that even though I can't relate to it. Okay, so you can fully comprehend the infinite regression of causes that has no ultimate cause, yet we have the ultimate uncaused cause who may or may not have existed in or outside of time before he cleared the universe, and his eternal existence is part of his nature, of which there is no beginning. So you can comprehend that. Basically, what you're saying is that God is eternal. And yes, that is rationally. Okay.

And can you comprehend his omnipresence, that he's everywhere, all the time, in all dimensions, places, thoughts? Can you comprehend that? You're breaking up.

You're breaking up. Can you hear me now better? Yes. Do you comprehend how he can be all places at all times? Do you comprehend it? Logically, it is comprehensible. I'm going to ask you one question before you go to the break.

Can you comprehend the idea that God exists, one being or three persons, simultaneously, eternally? See how you answer that when you get back, okay? Okay, hold on, folks. We will be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, welcome back, everybody.

If you want to give me a call, three open lines, 877-207-2276. All right, Anthony, are you still there? Yes. All right. So what I was doing is running comparative ideas that you can understand at different levels.

That's all I was doing. You can understand in one level the idea of omniscience and omnipresence and things like that and eternality, but you can't comprehend what it means to have an infinite regression of causes. That's just not possible. We can't fathom that because it means to comprehend eternity. But on the other hand, we can understand the concept of the idea of something going back that far. Likewise, you can do the same thing with the doctrine of the Trinity. We can't comprehend fully and completely how the perichoresis in the divine simplicity of the Trinitarian communion occurs. But we can understand that there's one God and three distinct simultaneous persons. And so there are different levels of comprehension and understanding. I would argue we can't understand that because unlike eternality, which is a logically coherent concept, the idea that God is both a unity and a multiplicity is logically incoherent.

The human mind cannot in any way... No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not.

You say that, you have a problem. I have to correct you to say that God's unity and his plurality are not incoherent. Because if that's the case, then the Trinity is impossible. And incoherence means it's not logically sound or logically possible. Exactly.

Since logic is... Do you deny the Trinity? Absolutely. It doesn't make sense. Oh, that explains it. Okay.

Okay. So let me ask you, how many gods are there in the entire Bible? One. One true God. Is Jesus called God? Is Jesus called God? In some cases it appears that the Bible does... Is he called God?

Yes or no? Is he called God? In at least one location he does appear to be called God. Okay. John 20, 28.

HaKuriyas mu kaihathayas mu. Thomas said to Jesus, the Lord of me and the God of me. Okay. John 5, 18. Jesus was calling God his own father, making himself equal to God. John 1, 1. In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God. Verse 14. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. That means God became flesh dwelt among us.

In Hebrews 1, 6 it says... Actually, yeah, but of the son he says, thy throne, oh God, is forever and ever. God the father calls, Jesus God. So is Jesus called God? He is.

Okay. So we know the father is called God. Is the Holy Spirit also called God? I don't know.

Yes, he is. In Acts chapter 5. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit.

He says you lied to God. Okay. Now, do you know what personhood is? Uh, yes. What is it?

Okay. A person is an entity with a will or an intention, a mind or a consciousness. An entity? And a body. Is that what it is?

That's what it is? Sure. Okay. So is Jesus or the Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit an entity? Because it has a will. The Holy Spirit has a will. Some people have said that the...

I'm asking you. Some people have said the Holy Spirit is... Well, I'm answering your question. The Holy Spirit is just the father existing as a spirit.

Okay. The Holy Spirit speaks and has a will. Now, is the Holy Spirit exemplifying personhood by having a will and speaking? Right.

Because he is God. Is it exemplifying personhood by having a will and speaking and loving and being able to be grieved? Is that exemplifying attributes of personhood? Yes. Right. Yes. So Jesus is also exemplifying attributes of personhood, right? Yes.

Right? Okay. The father exhibits attributes of personhood, right? He has a will. He speaks, right? Yes.

Okay. The father speaks to the son. The son speaks to the father. But they're both called God and yet they're different persons.

So, how do you make sense of that? Well, the Holy Spirit, sometimes that's just the spirit. Father and son. Father and son.

I brought that up specifically. They speak to each other. Okay. Well, there are three. Each is called God. Yes.

I know. We're just working two at a time. We can do two, then we do three.

Okay. So the father and the son are each called God. And you admitted properly there's only one God. And you admitted what personhood is, having a will and things like that, being able to speak. The father speaks to the son.

The son speaks to the father. They're both called God. So, how many gods are there?

Uh, there's one. One God. So, the father's called God and Jesus is called God. Is that two gods? Is it two gods?

No, it's not. It's not two gods. Oh, so you believe that there's at least two persons in the Godhead. Okay.

I get it. Well, when we look at the instances in which Jesus is called God, for instance, in Thomas and, uh, in the beginning of John, we do notice that Jesus is not, that is not Jesus himself claiming to be God. That is another, uh, person. Jesus claims to be God. In John 8, 24, John 8, 58, before Abraham was I Am, they picked up stones to throw at him. He hid himself. In John 10, 30, I and the father are one.

They picked up stones again to throw at him. And they asked him why. And he said, because you being a man make yourself to be God. He was claiming to be God. In John 8, 24, unless you believe that I Am, you'll die in your sins. John 8, 58, before Abraham was I Am. Yeah, he claimed to be God. Well, there are different ways, that is a, uh, enigmatic puzzling statement, I Am statements by Jesus. And some people have stated that.

No, it's enigmatic to you if you deny the truth. He said. No.

No, no, no. You're the one who denies who Christ is. Let me ask you. If I can prove to you, you deny Jesus as God in flesh, right?

Right? Yes. Okay. If I can prove to you he's called God Almighty, would that settle it? Well, someone might call him God, but is he God? I said God Almighty. I said God Almighty. If I can show you that he is referred to as God Almighty, would you then accept him as being God Almighty? I would entertain the notion. I'm not saying I would accept it, but I would like to hear your explanation. So if I can show you in scripture where he is called God Almighty, but you don't like the idea, you won't believe it. Oh, I see. So you submit the scriptures to your personal feelings, your desires.

Well, as you've explained on your show many times, there's an interpretive domain or a semantic domain for various terminologies and words, so I'd have to do my own research. You ready? All right. Go ahead.

All right. The phrase, the phrase, call upon the name of Yahweh, okay? It occurs all over the Old Testament. Not the word call, not the word name, not the word Yahweh, but the phrase call upon the name of Yahweh. It's Yahweh who's God Almighty, right? Yes. So whenever you have the phrase call upon the name of Yahweh, it means to call upon God Almighty, right?

Is that correct? I'll give that to you. I'll just give it to you for the sake of conversation. Well, is Yahweh the only one who's called God Almighty? He's called Yahweh, right?

That's Yahweh. We've got a break. I'm going to prove it to you. All right. I'm going to prove it to you. It is.

Oh, yeah. We'll get back to it after the break. I'm going to prove it to you.

Hey, folks. We'll be right back. This is what we call apologetics, and you'll see what happens.

It'll be interesting because you'll still deny the truth. We'll be right back after these messages. Three open lines, 877-207-2276. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody.

Welcome back to the show, Anthony. Are you still there? Yes. All right, now, so you've admitted then, just for verification, that the phrase call upon the name of Yahweh is addressing God Almighty, right? Yahweh is God. Mm-hmm. God Almighty, right? Yes.

Okay. Do you know what the Septuagint is, by any chance? Isn't that the Latin translation of the New Testament?

No, no. It's the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. I got the Vulgate. The Vulgate is the Latin. Am I right about that?

I think so. So, what we're talking about here is the Jews themselves, because of geography and politics, where Alexander the Great came in and took over the Mediterranean area and made Greek a national language all throughout the area, it's really great because it prepared the way for the gospel to be preached in Greek. It's a very precise language. So, the Jews needed a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that everybody could look at and read. The Jews were dispersed all over the place in various things, all over the Mediterranean area, so they translated it into the Greek, and they call it the Septuagint by 70, 70 scholars. Now, some say 72, some say 70, but it's just called the 70.

The LXX. All right? Now. When they came to this phrase, call upon the name of Yahweh, they translated it as call upon the name of the Lord. The word the in Greek is ha, and the word Lord in Greek is kurias. So, the phrase call upon the name of Yahweh is translated as call upon the name of hakurias, or the Lord.

That means God Almighty. You with me so far? All right. I understand that.

Okay. Now, in 1 Corinthians 1, I'm going to start reading. Verses 1 and 2. Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.

Praise by calling with all who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. Why would Paul use a phrase, call upon the name of the Lord, which he knows, means, because he's writing in Greek, he knows what the Septuagint is. He knows that phrase is a reference to God Almighty. Why is he applying it to Jesus? Well, I hate to say this, Matt, but that can easily be explained by the fact that the Lord can be applied to even earthly kings and things like that.

So I don't think, and Paul, time out, time out. Did you hear me say the phrase? Did I say just the word? I even said earlier, not just the word, Lord, not just the word call, not just the word name. I said the phrase.

I repeatedly said the word phrase. The phrase call upon the name of Yahweh is translated into the phrase call upon the name of the Lord. The phrase call upon the name of the Lord is applied to Jesus. The phrase means, as you've admitted, that he's God Almighty. Why is the phrase that implies that he's God Almighty applied to Jesus?

Can you please answer that phrase? It could be a coincidence that that string of words would be used in front of it. It could be, because Paul, in my opinion, as I read, almost never refers to equates Jesus with some sort of divinity.

So I asked a question right here. Why would Paul the apostle who knew Greek, because he wrote in Greek, knew the Septuagint, he's a Pharisee, knows that the phrase call upon the name of the Lord is a phrase equivalently translated from the phrase called upon the name of Yahweh, and he applies it to Jesus. Tell me why he would apply it to Jesus if he's not God Almighty. I would say that's an interesting coincidence, but definitely not definitive. Coincidence? Oh, it's not definitive when Jesus is specifically addressed by a phrase used only of God Almighty, but it's not definitive.

Yeah. Well the word Lord, which I'm guessing kurios is Greek. It's not the word Lord. It's the phrase. The phrase. I keep telling you. Right.

The phrase. Okay. I think that, okay, you can easily say, that's not something I would disagree with.

Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. Yeah. That's something that could be said, but doesn't necessarily allege his divinity.

Yeah, I don't see a problem there for that. Oh, so let me get this straight. So let me get this straight. It doesn't mean he's divine when a phrase used only of God Almighty is applied to Jesus, but doesn't mean he's divine. Even though it's a complete phrase. It's two different contexts. It's the Old Testament, which frequently uses that term. And then it's Paul.

We have no idea if he was connecting it to, in his mind, definitively. Now it's an coincidence. So wait a minute.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees who could teach and preach in both Hebrew and in Greek, who knew this, who knew, I didn't know what the phrase means, to call upon the name of Yahweh, is a phrase they would use. They would even change it to call upon the name of Adonai, because they didn't want to misuse his holy name.

He knew what the phrase meant. That's exactly what the Jews knew about, and it's applied to Jesus. I think you're trying to read Paul's mind there. You're assuming a lot of things that could potentially be true, but as I said, they're not definitive. Well, I'll tell you what, you just proved my point that you will not believe the truth of God's word.

There it is. You deny who Christ is. You're lost. It's not me being angry. It's not me calling names.

I'm informing you of your condition. You are lost. If you were to die now, denying who Christ is, unfortunately, you'd go to hell. Again, remember the point about, how can I believe something that isn't logically coherent? You have not demonstrated incoherence of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Let me tell you. What about the personhood of the person of Christ, 100% divine, 100% human? How is that logically coherent? The Bible doesn't say he's 100% each. The Bible says he has two distinct natures in one person. That's what it says. You need to go to my website, you need to look up hypostatic union and communication of the properties. You need to look.

You need to study, because I can teach this to you. We've got callers waiting, but I'm trying to inform you that you say it's logically incoherent. Do you think you're the first one who's told me this after 42 years?

Of course not. I've had Muslims say it's logical. I've had Muslims tell me it's logically incoherent. This is something they can't do and you can't do, because you don't understand what it means to be logically incoherent. It has to have, ultimately, a contradiction, a second law of logic, the law of non-contradiction.

It's shortened as LNC. You then need to get premises, and you need to get the premises. This is why this, this, this, and this premise, with this premise means it cannot both be true at the same time, in the same sense, in the same way. That's how you demonstrate incoherence.

I challenge you to define the doctrine of the Trinity properly, and then demonstrate its incoherence, how one God has to, cannot be, three simultaneous and distinct persons. Give it a shot. Maybe you'll be the first one in 42 years. Maybe I'll call back. No.

You can try it. Okay? Okay. All right. Thanks, Matt. All right. Talk to you later.

All right. Let's get to Mark from North Carolina. We lost Mark. Now we have four open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276.

Jose from Texas. Welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt. How are you doing this Friday?

Doing all right. Just doing basic apologetics with someone who doesn't know who Jesus is. I don't know if you quoted John 2028.

I think that would have been a strike in the head. Yeah. There's a lot of verses, particularly that one, which I quoted in Greek, and then there's also Hebrews 1-6 where it says, but of the Son, he says, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, where God the Father calls Jesus God. They submit the scriptures to their own understanding. There's other things I could show him to demonstrate that Jesus is God Almighty. There's other ways, but I did it with the call upon the name of the Lord, which he stumbled over.

So what do you got, buddy? Yeah. Matt, I was reading in the book of Luke 24, my question is Luke 24 verses 16 and on, and it talks about that their eyes, I'm guessing the disciples, were prevented from recognizing him. Of course, thinking about Jesus after the resurrection. My question is, why couldn't they recognize Jesus while they were walking to, I believe, I'm not sure about pronouncing that right, the road, it's like 7 miles away from Jerusalem as they're walking. Yeah. But anyways, my question is, why couldn't they recognize him until they sat down and ate, I guess, the feast?

Was Jesus his guide to himself, or I don't want to say he had a different appearance. Tell you what, let me put it together for you after the break, okay? And I think you might like the answer, okay?

So hold on. Okay, buddy? All right.

Hopefully you like the answer. Hey, we'll be right back, folks, after these messages. Three open lines, 877-207-2276, we'll be right back.

It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276, here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back, everybody. Jose, are you still there?

Yes, sir, I think we are. All right. Now, why did they not recognize him? The first answer is Luke 24, 16, because they were prevented from recognizing him. That's what it says. That's the reason why.

Okay? Now, let's add a little bit of flesh and bone on it. You got to understand that when Jesus rose from the dead, he still retained his crucifixion wounds. A lot of people think that he's a blonde, cherry-blue-like, Caucasian surfer Jesus, a perfect complexion. No, he retained the holes in his wrist and the hole in his side, because he said to Thomas, after the resurrection, put your hand into my side, put your finger into my hand, now see and believe. That means that Jesus retained the crucifixion wounds. It also certainly implies he retained the wounds of his beating, about his face, his beard plucked from his face.

He had holes in his feet, back ripped open. This is what we can assume from scripture without stretching it at all, because we know he retained these wounds after his resurrection when he appeared to Thomas. Now, they're going along the road to Emmaus, and I think, if I remember correctly, they were going there for a while, and probably the sun went down, so if he had a hood over his face, and their eyes were prevented, then they're not going to recognize him in part because of the beating about his face. Now, you'd say, well, they'd recognize his voice. Well, they were beheld from recognizing him. So, I think this is important, because we want to know that Jesus retained his crucifixion wounds, and he probably will stay like that forever.

This is probably the case, because it was in his resurrected glorified body, and then notice what happened. After they broke bread together, they recognized him. Now, I want you to picture the garment they're wearing.

Picture the garment, Jesus in a robe, and the sleeves, not like our sleeve in a shirt, but the long sleeves, they go down to the hands, sometimes past the hands, and so he's well concealed. They sit down to break bread, and as they break bread, what they would do, they didn't reach into their cellophane plastic bag, and then they would just get a slice of bread. It says, when he had reclined at the table, verse 30, with them, he took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, began giving it to them, and their eyes were opened. It's interesting, the breaking of the bread. What is involved in breaking the bread? A tearing of the bread, they tore it, that's what it means to break it. They took the bread, and breaking it, we would just reach in for a slice. Picture a bread, 10 inches in diameter kind of a thing, a couple three, four inches high, as a mound that was cooked, and it just kind of flattened out in a round thing, almost like a frisbee. And then in order to get that bread, you tore it. What would happen to his hands as he tore the bread?

You bring your elbows up to your chest range, and you tweak. The wrists would have become visible at that point. And maybe, just maybe, at that place, they went, and they saw who was breaking the bread after his resurrection, and then they recognized what was going on. They were beheld for this time, for some other reasons too. Okay? Okay, do you think, going back to verse 16, do you think that their eyes were prevented?

Do you think God allowed that to happen, that he prevented their eyes? Yeah. I guess. Yeah. I don't know. Yeah.

And I don't know why, just as their eyes were prevented. And let's see, let's see, let's see. It's aorist, infinitive, it's imperfect, passive. Yeah.

So it means, yeah, it's just the kind of, it's a middle voice, no, it's not passive, excuse me. And so, it was something that occurred to them. So at any rate, their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. So there was a reason, and I'm not exactly sure, unless it's to get to the point of the symbol of communion in the breaking of the bread, which is ultimately the representation of his crucifixion and the redemptive work. And then that combined with probably seeing his wrists and the holes in his wrists, because people say he's crucified his palms. No, he wasn't. It was his wrists. They didn't do it in the palms, not very often. And so, they didn't have a word for wrist back then, the wrist was part of the hands.

So that's how it was done with him. Okay? Alright, man?

Well anyways, thank you, I love the answer, and yeah, I think verse 16 gives it away. But anyways, thank you, and I hope you have a nice weekend. You too, man.

I need it too, thanks. God bless, appreciate it. Alright, bye bye. Alright.

Alright, now let's jump over to Cynthia from North Carolina, Cynthia, welcome here on the air. Hi, I was just calling about your, what you believe regarding baptism, water baptism. Okay, what about it? Is it necessary for salvation, or what? Water, say this again?

What's your question, more specifically, and then we'll get to it. Oh, relative to, Jesus was immersed in water, and I was just wondering if you believe the same thing. No, I don't believe he was immersed. I believe he was sprinkled.

That's what I believe. And the reason is, is because, why would, uh huh, go ahead, I'm sorry, this is fine, is because in Matthew 3.15 he says to John the Baptist, you have to fulfill all righteousness. To fulfill means Old Testament, so they're fulfilling something, Old Testament law, and Jesus was made under the law, Galatians 4.4. Well, the only places in scripture that you can find that relate to his baptism, because you get to fulfill it, is when you look, you'll find that Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 5, 6, and 7 talks about this. Coincidentally, when you look in Numbers chapter 4, Leviticus chapter 8, and Exodus 29, that you find that in order for a man to enter into the priesthood, he had to be 30 years of age. Jesus was 30 when he started his ministry.

He needed a verbal blessing, my beloved son whom I'm well pleased, needed to have oil applied to him, that's the representation of the Holy Spirit, 1 John 2.27, and the Holy Spirit came upon him at his baptism, and the instructions for the priest, for the man who entered the priesthood in Numbers 8, 7, is to be sprinkled with water. That's the instruction according to the law. Say that again, please. Say that last one again.

Sure. Numbers 8, 7, the instruction by the law, I'll read it to you, Numbers 8, 7, thus you shall do to them for their cleansing, sprinkle purifying water on them, and let them use a razor over their whole body, wash their clothes, and they'll be clean. Now it doesn't say Jesus used a razor over his whole body, washed his clothes, and there's other things that are mentioned in the Old Testament that Jesus didn't do.

So it looks like what was happening is the writer Matthew was alluding to several of the points to bring out the idea. He was fulfilling the Old Testament. He was doing this because Jesus himself said to fulfill all righteousness. This means to fulfill the law. And so the only places you can find in scripture are those areas. And in that requirement of a man entering into the priesthood, he had to be sprinkled with water. That's what the scriptures say. So I conclude, okay then, Jesus was sprinkled. May I mention something? Sure.

Okay. Relative to the Old Testament and New Testament, regarding some things, it's where those do not carry over into the New Testament. And if John the Baptist, his cousin, baptized him by immersion, immersion would mean to go under. I wouldn't want to be baptized in any other way except through immersion. It's the washing away of sins. What a great deal of thought that is.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait. Baptism doesn't wash away our sins. What church do you go to?

I go to a full gospel, salvation, preaching church. Do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes. Okay.

So do you say that baptism is a requirement for salvation? I do. Uh-huh, I do.

Okay. So let me ask you, does the Bible teach that we're justified by faith, Romans 5-1, having therefore been justified by faith? It says that, right?

Yes, definitely, definitely. And justification means you're saved, right? Right. When you say justification, what do you mean by justification? Romans 4-5, it says, in Romans 4-5, it says, to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is credited as righteousness. So the faith is credited as righteousness, right? That righteousness is justification. Okay? Well, there's more to, more than that, there's, there's absolutely forgiveness of your sins.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Don't you, you're adding, you're adding to the text. You're adding.

Um, you're adding, you add too much regularly. And the young man a few minutes ago, the one before this last one, he did a great splendid job of also being able to talk with you, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, you could greet more people to a degree, but it has to be true. And you only preach harmful treats. I hope everyone out there will listen to the righteous.

Can you stop? She is a flaming heretic who doesn't want to listen. Did you notice the rudeness, folks? Did you notice the complete rudeness and the unwillingness to discuss?

Did you notice that? Are you there? Please know my heart. People that are listening. Okay. I'm not letting you speak.

You're not on the air. Okay. So you see, I will offer this challenge to her, to somebody in her church that they want to have a formal debate with me recorded online where we discuss this issue of baptism and salvation.

They want to do it. She's if she's willing to get somebody who can do this, I'd be glad to do it. I don't think she's very good at it because she doesn't want to have a dialogue. She only wants to preach and so she's out of line and out of order, but let me try back on this.

See if she's willing to talk. Are you there? Cynthia?

Um, I am and I do not have a hateful spirit at all. Excuse me. Can you stop? Cynthia? Cynthia, can you stop for a second?

Can you come across beer? Boy, I'm going to try it again. Cynthia. Okay. Can you please be patient? I'm just asking you to be patient.

Make people look condescending. Okay. Okay. So she's not. So guess what? Watch this.

Three, two, one. Gone. Let's get to Darrell from Virginia. Darrell, welcome. You're on the air. We've got about a minute or less. Sorry buddy. What do you got, man? Um, so just had a couple of verses if you don't follow. Hey, you're breaking up a little bit, too, so sorry, but plus we're almost out of time.

Just had a couple of verses while you didn't show up at the day of and that fellow was, you know, to accept that if God would call someone a culture. Okay. You know what? Hey Darrell. Sorry. I can't hear you.

You're breaking up. Sorry. I want to hear you. I do.

And we're out of time. Can you call back Monday? Can you just get a better connection? Yes, I will. Okay.

I'm sorry about that, but that's just what's happening. Okay, buddy. Okay. Sorry. Okay.

All right. Hey, folks. If you want to listen to my debate tonight on the Trinity versus Oneness, it's in one hour from now, and all you got to do is go to karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, forward slash calendar, and the link to watch will be right there.

And it's already there up right now. If you want to check it out. May the Lord bless you. I hope you have a great weekend, folks. We'll talk to you later. God bless. Another program powered by the Truth Network.