Share This Episode
Matt Slick Live! Matt Slick Logo

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick
The Truth Network Radio
February 24, 2023 3:09 pm

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1023 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

February 24, 2023 3:09 pm

Open calls, questions, and discussion with Matt Slick LIVE in the studio. Topics include---1- YouTube, Facebook, and Rumble Censorship-2- Water baptism -09-3- Laws of Logic and transcendentals -21-4- Eschatology and end times -42

Amy Lawrence Show
Amy Lawrence
Amy Lawrence Show
Amy Lawrence
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
More Than Ink
Pastor Jim Catlin & Dorothy Catlin

The following program is recorded content created with us 72072276, it's no big deal, it's really easy to do. And if you do that, we can get you online and we can talk if you have a question or comment. And if you're not comfortable getting on the air, for whatever reason, you can email me at info at Okay, look at that, got a little opening thing there, come on, and so you can email me there. Oh, look at that, all right, there we go. You can email me there.

All right, sorry, we had a little glitch there kinda came up. So info at, and what I'll do is if people give me an email, then I'll often, what I'll do is read them over the air and go through stuff. I like to do that anyway, so all of a sudden, I just do that, just go through some of the questions that are there, and we'll see. So like I said, Wide Open Lines, give me a call, 8772072276, now, I'm just gonna let you know, we were strategizing today about some of the procedures that we're gonna be doing here on the show as far as the media outreach goes, and over the air, it's fine. So we're on Facebook, and what we do is I just, I send it, when I get the show ready, I send it to Facebook,, Facebook, and there we go, that's right, Facebook. So we send it to Facebook, and then what Laura does is she takes that URL and puts it into the other Facebook pages. And I believe, let's see, and then we do YouTube, match slick-live, and we do that also. And I wanna talk to you about YouTube and stuff.

So as you may know, our experience, we certainly have, we've experienced it as other Christians and conservatives have experienced it, that the conservative voice is being silenced a little bit more and more. So I've said stuff about COVID that I don't trust the vaccines, that's just my opinion, okay? You do what you want, I don't trust them. And if I say something like that, I can be banned for like a week long.

You can't say anything, you violated our standards, whatever, just for saying that opinion. And for example, quoting statistics like cloth masks are 3% effective, and the other kind of masks was paper-ish looking kind of doctor masks. Those are 50% effective on average. And if you do them very well, they can be up to around 80% effective. If you touch them, there's problems there and stuff like that.

Okay, those are stats. Now, I said this just now as a test to see if we get you banned on that. So on Facebook it is, or excuse me, not Facebook, but YouTube, we know we also have people who listen specifically to Turn Me In.

We know that, we know there's enemies of the gospel, enemies of Christianity. They're members of the thought police and they walk lockstep. And I'm not allowed to really voice my opinions unless it's within the certain parameters of acceptability here in America, free speech America. Did I say free speech America?

Mostly free speech America, just mostly peaceful riots, mostly free speech. And so, we'll see what happens, that's why I said it too, so see if we get banned on that. So what I'm saying is go to Rumble. We are moving over to Rumble. We have karmorg at Rumble and I think Laura will probably or somebody will probably put the Rumble URL in and you have to register and you can watch the videos without registering, but if you want to comment, you have to register and that's it.

So not a big deal and I'm looking at the Rumble feed right now, so we're gonna move over there because I believe it was started by a Christian and it's growing very quickly. And over there, you have the right to say what you feel, what your opinion is. My opinion is that our government is not operating in our best interests. How about that? That's my opinion. You see, I believe that's the case.

I believe that the Biden crime family is responsible for a lot of this. See, this is my opinion. Am I allowed to say that? Well, on Rumble, I can, but maybe not on YouTube. Who knows? And then when they say you can't post for a week or you can't broadcast for a week, they don't tell you why.

Just you haven't met our criteria, blah, blah, blah. So we are advising people to move over to Rumble and you can go to Rumble, I think it is, isn't that it? Rumble, that's like live. This is supposed to be, it should be something easier than all those letters.

Shouldn't it be just some simple URL like forward slash or something like that? We got some guys and girls who work with us behind the scenes. They figure this stuff out, they let me know. All right, hey, how about that? Let's get to Ron from North Carolina. Ron, welcome. You are on the air.

Yes, sir. I had a question. I came out of a church that takes United Pentecostal Church and they were telling me that you had to be baptized to keep the Trinity safe. Can you explain that, why they do that for? Yeah, the United Pentecostal Church is a non-Christian cult, okay?

Just so you know. They deny the Trinity, they claim to affirm the true doctrine of the incarnation but there are lots of problems with that doctrine. And they require a work for salvation, namely baptism, and it has to be by a formula in Jesus' name, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it's just considered a cult. That's where it's a false doctrine that we're teaching, okay? Yes, sir.

Seriously, I can go into it more about baptism if you have any questions about baptism. But yeah, it's a cult, okay? It's well known to be a cult, okay? Yes, sir, Ron, yeah. I left that church for many years ago.

You went there for many years? Yeah, yeah, I left there. It's probably been 20-some years ago I left that church.

Oh, okay. Honestly, I was confused about it once in a while. Well, look, I was gonna say the proper mode of baptism is what Jesus instituted in Matthew 28, 19 through 20. He says, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The reason you see the phrase in the name of Jesus in the book of Acts, for example, is because that's the phrase that it designates the authority of. And that's found in Acts 4, 7.

In what name are you doing this? In the name of Jesus we're doing this. That just means in the name of Jesus is the authority of things.

So it's like stop in the name of the law. So when you baptize in the name of Jesus, then you baptize by saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And furthermore, we should be baptized. We absolutely should be baptized. But water baptism is not necessary in order to be saved. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone.

And we should get baptized, but we're not justified by our baptism, okay? Yes, sir. All right, does that sound good? Any other questions?

Nothing. All right, well, there you go. Well, thanks for listening, Ron, and calling up. Appreciate it. Okay, all right. All right, in that case, what we'll do, we'll get going here, and let's get over to Alberto from Georgia, Alberto, welcome. You're on the air.

Yeah, Matt Slick, yeah. I purchased this series of VHS from Jack Airford of Book of Revelation, like a VHS series. And he was saying that the rod and the wire over the bow were shooting forward, these children forward, so. Wait, I can't understand you.

The rod and the wire over the bow were shooting. No, you don't understand, I can't understand you. I can't understand what sentences you're saying.

So, maybe you could, I don't know if the connection or. Jack Airford was saying, yeah. Are you in the speakerphone? Hold on, I'm taking my glasses, no too far.

I'm taking the Bluetooth off. Yeah, that'd be better, okay? All right. Okay, what I was saying is that Jack Airford was saying that the rod and the wire over the bow was Jesus shooting his children forward for evangelism.

Okay, wait a second, okay, hold on, hold on. The white horse, something at a bowl or a bowl, shooting his people. The rider with the bow. He was shooting his children forward to do the evangelism work. Shooting them forward, I know nothing of shooting them forward in Revelation.

I know, but that's what he was saying in the series, in the VHS series of Baba. He was saying that the rider was in the white horse with the bow was Jesus, instead of the Antichrist. That he was shooting his children forward to do the evangelism work forward. Let's see, that's out of Revelation 6. It says, heard one of the four living creatures, et cetera. Verse two, look to hold the white horse, he who sat on it had a bow and a crown was given to him and he went out conquering and to conquer. And he broke the second seal, second living creature saying, come, another red horse went out. So, yeah, I don't know. It says, I saw the lamb broke one of the seven seals.

Verse one, I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as with the voice of thunder, come, and I looked, behold the white horse as he sat on the bow. Yeah, I wouldn't say it was, okay, here's the thing. There's four seals, five seals, six, seven, seven of them. And four angels, you know what, I'm not gonna say anything. Okay, I wouldn't say this is what it is. There's just too much there.

It's just too much to. Well, he was saying that the rider was Jesus, instead of the Antichrist, the bow, he was shooting his children forward to do the evangelism work. Well, it might be, but I don't, see, when it says a crown was given to him and a white horse, generally a white, see, generally white stands for purity, and we are given white stones, it's a symbol. That means that we are given a, let me explain what white stone is. Back in the day, back then, when someone did a crime and they paid for the crime or they were absolved from the crime, a white stone was put in front of their house or their dwelling place, signifying to others that this person was innocent, was clean. So, the white horse probably has something similar to do, and it might be Jesus.

I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to just take a look and see. Well, the way I understand it, the white horse is the Antichrist.

To me, it occurs to both, but has no arrows. Well, I don't know. That's the Antichrist.

I don't know. I mean, and then Jesus Christ is the one in the book of Revelation chapter 19, that's Jesus coming back. That's the, right, no horse.

Okay, well, I can't. He's king, but that's the one in the book of chapter six. It's the Antichrist, not Jesus.

But according to him, that apron was saying that was Jesus. Okay, I can't do the exegesis right now to tell you. Okay?

It doesn't seem to be the case, it is the Antichrist, but I would like to look at it and in fact, what's happening more and more is this issue of me needing to study Revelation eight, nine, 10, and maybe also six. I could do an analysis. But there you go. Okay, buddy?

All right. Hey folks, Five Open Lines. If you want to give me a call, 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 to, welcome back to the show. If you want, you can give me a call at 877-207-2276. And we've got some radio questions waiting. I can get to those as they come in.

Whew, what a day, what a day. Let me get to one of those right now. Let's see. Radio questions, so here we go. How about this? At the start of a particular show, Matt requested listener assistance regarding articles providing background details about the New Testament story of the wedding feast. Oh, yeah.

I've attached a very short related article, Wedding Feast Cultural, from Christian organization website here in Australia. Oh, that is so helpful. Hey, that's exactly what I need. Thank you, that's good. See, I like this. People will ask for help and they come out of the woodwork. I love that. That is good stuff. I need that.

For an article I am working on. All right, let's get to John from Texas. Hey, John, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt.

Good afternoon, good evening to you. So, what I wanted to talk about was the God's nature, specifically, and how they consist of the logical absolutes. Are you Christian or atheist? I'm an atheist. Okay, all right. Yes. Okay.

And I came across your discussion with Matt Delahunty back in 2009 that referenced your transcendental argument for God. Yeah. Yeah, I'm gonna pause every now and then just to make sure we're on the same page.

I don't wanna talk for, I don't wanna keep talking. That's okay. Thanks, appreciate it.

Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Yes, and just real quick, as an aside, I enjoy watching you both.

You two are like my favorites to watch and stream. Even though I am an atheist, I do enjoy your content. Okay. As a former Christian, I'm always curious, right? I like the inquiry and the question, stuff like that.

But, okay, enough of that. So, when it comes to God's nature and God's absolutes, I noticed that you two had a discussion, or you two had a difference with whether or not they were conceptual or non-physical, and when Matt Dillahunty came across as saying that they're not conceptual nor physical, you had a problem with that, is that correct? Yes, I did.

I asked for a third option. Because, yeah, because in your transcendental argument, what you kind of referenced was that they're not a product of any human thinking, and they're not contingent on any human thinking. Are we good right there? Yes. Yeah. So, what Matt then kind of assumed from that is that while he agreed that they're not contingent on any human thinking, he assumed that you were then going to say that there are contingent on the mind of God. Is that correct?

Yes, I would say that, yes. Okay, now, I often, not often, but I've heard that you've taken some criticism about not being able to give a third option for whether or not God is conceptual or physical. I was just curious. Not that I'm trying to put you on the spot here, but I was just curious.

It's easy. What Matt should have said was spiritual, because that's a third option. There's spiritual, conceptual, and there is the physical.

Those are the three main categories of existence. Okay, at least for the Christian worldview. Okay, so it would have been easy for him to do. But I thought that when we had that discussion, which was so many years ago, he was trying to negate the argument I had by saying it was a third option, but he couldn't produce a third option. Well, if he's going to make a statement, well, it's a third option. It's neither one of these. Okay, then what's the other thing? I don't know. Well, then how do you know? It's neither one. Because if you say it's neither one of those, and it has to be something else, well, then what else is there?

And he wasn't able to come up with it. Sure, and I think that's just the limit of pretty much human experience when it comes to how we exist in this universe, because it's necessarily the case that, as humans, our existence is either conceptual or physical. Like, my mother doesn't know who you are, but if I talked to her about you, she would have a conceptual idea, and in that sense, you would exist. Our existence is not just conceptual or physical, but both. Sure, I would agree that, well, whenever we talk about fictional characters in a book, they don't exist physically. But we do have a conceptual idea of who they are.

Yeah, that's true. But we talk about us, yeah, but you talk about something that is, by definition, only conceptual and fictional, then that's it. Yeah. That you and I, as we're talking, I thought you did that category, but go ahead. Yeah, the analogy's not perfect, but I was just trying to get this idea that when we talk about we, you know, when I say we as like a plural form, I may not have an idea of everyone who stands behind me, but I do have this sort of conceptual idea. Yeah, are we, I mean, kind of following? Yeah, okay, so. Okay, so that third option of spiritual, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, go ahead, that's right. So this idea of spiritual being the third option, what I would want to know about this is when we talk about God's nature and how they consist of a logical absolute, are we talking about spiritual here? Are we talking about the nature of God, the inherent characteristics of him that is spiritual? Well, what we would say for the Christian context is that God is that being who exists from all eternity and will never not exist, and he has a seity, and that his mind is perfect, and he thinks a logic that is consistent with his holiness and his nature, and that the universal laws of logic, the transcendental nature of those things are there because God is behind them. I can't work out all particulars, but we would say that they're part of God's mind, okay? Yeah, sure, and I understand that, you know, the Bible sort of speaks on top, on some of these things about the characteristics of him, you know, omniscience, omnipotence, presence, and you know, in Psalms, Genesis, and Deuteronomy, it talks about laws of non-contradiction. But what I was, so I had a problem with Matt's idea as well because, you know, in our universe, if something is not physical or conceptual, then I kind of had this trouble because I kept thinking of nothing, and I noticed that at one point during the, I think the hour-long discussion that you guys had, that was what you presented, not as a third option, but sort of like, this is what you're talking about, Matt, when you say it's not physical and more conceptual, then your argument must be nothing if you're not offering a third option. Right, and people said this, because he doesn't know a third option doesn't mean there isn't one. And it's not a very good foundation to build upon, but there's even a fourth option called propositions. Are you familiar with that? Run that by me real quick, because I may, but maybe it's used in a different term. Yeah, because in philosophy, not that I'm very trained on it, I'm self-studied, but one of the issues that a lot of the atheists have raised up is the issue of what truth-bearing entities are, and they don't mean by living beings, but propositions. And so I was confronted with this a while back, and I decided to check things out and to look, and so I learned, and another option here, let me read what propositions are. And you might want to study this. Let's see, propositions, go on, where is it?

Proposition, my search function isn't working. I have to reopen it. So hold on, hey, we got a break, so hold on, and we'll get back, and we'll talk after that, okay? So hold up, buddy, okay?

All right. Yeah, sure. Hey folks, Four Open Lines, if you wanna give me a call, that's 877-207-2276. I wanna hear from you. Give me a call. I'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back to the show.

Bottom of the hour, we have three open lines, 877-207-2276. Just wanna say thanks to Mr. Kitt for your donation, and you can do that inside of Rumble, if you like what you hear. There's a way to do it.

I don't know how to do it. But hey, thanks, Mr. Kitt. He's a pretty good guy.

I've known him for a few years. All right, let's get back on the air with John from Texas. Okay, John, you there?

I'm still here. All right. So propositions, these are some of the things that the atheists have used to try and get out of the transcendentals and universals. Now transcendentals, basically, and universals are basically the same thing here. And so the laws of logic are subcategories, we would say, of transcendentals.

Are you familiar with them or with universals? Yeah, the laws of absolutes, yeah. Okay, do you know what a primary and secondary substance is in materiality or actuality? Do you know?

Okay, let me help you. A primary substance would- Yeah, I do know, I do know. Yeah, I'm sorry, I do know. I do know.

It took me a while. It's all right. A primary substance would be a chair. The secondary substance would be chairness. So chairness is a universal. You with me? I'm with you. Okay. Would you agree that the laws of logic are universals?

I agree. Okay. Do they occur in the mind? They do, or applications of them, they occur in the mind.

Very good. Do they occur under rocks or behind trees? They're not physical. They're not properties of the physical realm, okay. So they don't occur in the physical realm at all. So if the physical universe was gone, that would have no effect on their transcendental necessity, would it?

No, it wouldn't affect that. Okay, good. So then what we have left is that the properties or these universals, particular laws of logic and other such things, the universals are not dependent upon the physical realm. So they're not derived out of the physical realm.

They're not properties of the physical realm, right? I agree. All right. Would you agree that the process of logic requires a mind? The process of logic, yes, it requires a mind. Okay. So we could say that logic is of the mind since it requires a mind, right?

Correct. And if the physical universe is not the part that produces these laws or is the foundation of those laws, then, and they occur in the mind and they're universally applicable and independent of the physical universe, then it makes sense to say there's a universal mind behind them, doesn't it? Repeat that, I'm sorry.

It kind of broke. It's all right. If the universe is gone, it has no, as you've admitted correctly, there is no effect on the actuality of the universals called the laws of logic. And since they're of the mind, they only occur in minds, as far as we know, then the, and you said, this is the key, you said they're independent of the physical realm, but they have existence. So they're transcendentals, they have existence which require a mind, so does not necessitate a universal mind? I wouldn't necessarily, well, how I understand a mind works is that everything that we've talked about, whenever we, whenever we point, so let me kind of slow down here, cause there's a lot there.

Trust me, I've done that so many times, no problem. Matt, let me tell you how many times I watched the discussion between you and Matt, just to make sure I was hearing everything right, because it was a lot to take in. Yeah, there is.

Trying to make it simpler. Yeah, when we talk about it. Yeah, but when we talk about a mind, we, it's a label that we point to something, right? Like, consciousness is the most familiar thing to us.

I know it sounds like I'm kind of going off, but I'm not, I'm gonna tie this back in. Like, consciousness is like perhaps the most familiar thing to us, you know? When we talk about a mind, what we understand is that it's always occurred alongside a brain. And whenever you talk about a universal mind, as an atheist, of course, I'm wondering, what are we talking about here? Are we talking about, you're talking about something spiritual, right? Well, here's the thing.

Yes, we are. And so, here's the premises we're working with. The physical universe does not produce the laws of logic, they're not the foundation of the laws of logic. They're not the precondition that makes them possible.

You've already agreed to that, and good. Which means, then, if the universe existed or did not exist, is irrelevant to their actuality. And you admitted that they are universals, which means they have a, it's like secondary substance. You have a chair, primary substance, and chairness. Secondary substance, chairness, is a universal. And you and I could be in different parts of the world, and we could look at chairs and recognize what chairness is. So, your conception of mind might be different, but we have the basic idea.

There's something behind them. You and I don't invent that concept, we apprehend that concept. So the ideas of these universals are mind dependent. Okay? Okay, I got the disconnection.

I figured out where I was kind of getting lost. Okay. Because what I agreed to was that the application of these logical absolute are conceptual, and that they need a mind.

The conceptual applications of them. They need a mind. See, just to kind of save us some time here, I agree with Matt on the sense that when we're talking about the logical absolute, we're talking about a concept of them, and that that concept points to something, much in the same way I was trying to relay earlier that the mind points to something that, you kind of get what I'm saying here? Yes, but if it points to something, you're admitting there's actuality within that mind. Within that, they're apprehending what exists, that's not invented, because it cannot be the product of individual minds. So this is the problem that you are having, and that Delahunty has, and other atheists have. Because there has to be a condition that justifies the universals, which are conceptual.

So how do you have that without God? So I am a preceptilisitionalist, just like Matt, on these, and I kind of agree with Matt that I don't agree, just depending on what he's talking about. Which is why this whole discussion between you and me started with, when you talk about the logical absolutes not being physical or conceptual, because whenever I say that they have these manifestations of them. I didn't say not conceptual. I didn't say not conceptual, they are conceptual. Okay, but go ahead.

Okay, yeah, I'm sorry, I misspoke. So whenever I said that they weren't physical or conceptual, or I said the applications of them are physical, and that they pointed to something, what then you're gonna ask me is that, are they physical, do you find them on the rocks? Are they conceptual, do they only happen in your mind? Or what's the third option, right? Because I need to be able to account for them. Or, if I'm not presupposing them, then I need to account for them. It's due to the, what's called the disjunctive syllogism. Okay, I know we're killing people's brains here, but I'm gonna go through, we'll get to the next callers, but disjunctive syllogism is when you only have two options.

God, not God. And one is negated, the other one is verified. It's called the impossibility of the contrary. So the problem with Matt's argument was, if it's just physical or conceptual, and he says neither, because he understands the issue of the disjunctive syllogism, says he cannot justify the universals out of the properties of the physical realm. Therefore, it has to be conceptual, but he doesn't want that, because that would suggest the universal mind of God. So he negated that one too, and that's why I said, what's the third option?

Because a third option would negate my disjunctive syllogism. And he didn't even know, and there's options. And so I was testing him for one thing, he said, no, these things, if he's gonna debate on this level.

And so, since they only had two options, but if we're gonna say spiritual, then he's really hosed. Because if he says that, then that means that supports God. And if he wants to go into what's called propositions, then he'd be stuck there, because propositions are supposed to be these abstract entities that are truth bearers, but don't have any real properties or existence, which just makes no sense. And there's different views of them, and I would ask him which view was correct, and he would be able to defend the Gottlieb, or Hume's view, or whatever it was on these things. I think it was Hume. And so you see, there's problems, okay? Yeah, I do see that. Okay, so, dude, you need to trust in Jesus, man.

Because Bertrand Russell, not Hume. Come on, man. Jesus rose from the dead.

The eyewitnesses wrote down what they saw. Why would you leave Christ for nothingness in Athens that can't account for anything? Well, I mean, I've been following Matt Delaunay for a while, and you know, it's not that I'm necessarily partial to him. There were some things I disagree with him on, specifically speaking, like on politics and stuff like that. But his approach to found-hearing-tism and skepticism, I'm a proponent of that.

I like that idea. Of what? Foundationalism, did you say, or what? No, no, found-hearing-tism.

It's a synergism of foundationalism and coherentism. Okay, gotcha. But kind of to tie this back one more time before I just let you get on to other callers. The break's coming up here pretty quickly, just so you know. Yeah, do you want me to wait, or? No, we're gonna go on, because I know that a lot of people don't like our conversations very long. Once you call back tomorrow, we can go through some more, because I enjoy talking to you.

This is what I like to do. You're very respectful. Can I ask how old you are?

You don't have to tell me, I'm just curious. I'm 26. Okay, all right, appreciate it. Oh, man, I'm 40 years older than you. Why?

I'm getting old. Amen, thanks a lot. Okay, we'll call back tomorrow, okay? And we'll talk some more, all right? All right. Appreciate it.

Good evening. Okay, everybody, you gotta pray for John, all right? And if he calls, then I'll try and pin him a little bit and show that his view doesn't work. Hey, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back.

Good. It talks about a prince coming in, Jesus, I guess. Yeah, there's different interpretations. Some say it's gonna be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and the Lord Jesus will be there.

Some, I've heard different arguments about what it could be, that one, it's a representation of that which is in heaven. So it's a tough one. It is a tough one to talk about and to analyze. So, you know, this is coming up more and more that I think the Lord might be pushing me towards a study of eschatology where I go through a lot of these things. I've never done it before.

Haven't had a need to. But as people keep asking, it starts to make me, you know, to look. You see, at the end of Ezekiel, which is interesting, it has a city, you know, and it's 4,500 cubits by, you know, it's a cube. And so, you know, it's huge. And is that literal or is it a spiritual meaning? And so, that's what I can't say the actual word is. And it talks about giving land to, if he wants to give land to someone or something.

You know, for the 12 tribes, if he wants to give a gift of land. Yep. I'm thinking it's the millennial. I mean. Well, it might be. I know. Yeah, see, this would be a problem for mine. It just starts talking about it.

Yeah, okay. It just starts talking about it in, I think, Ezekiel 40. Yeah, he goes through the vision of the man with the measuring rod and cubits and stuff.

Yeah, there's so much. Well, Ezekiel, was he talking to the people that were exiled to Babylon? I believe, I'm not sure exactly. I just look and see because it's been a while since I've studied Ezekiel for that reason. But it is to, he was among the exiles when he wrote it.

So, it's probably in reference to those people. Here's the thing is, like John wrote Revelation and he had to write it in code. And I think Ezekiel has a lot of code also. So that only the Jews would really be familiar with what's going on and they'd get the meaning.

We are outside of that culture, so we've lost a lot of that cultural aspect. One of the things I found in scripture is to do word studies. And if I were to do a serious study on Book of Revelation, then I would be forced to go through the Old Testament where similar concepts are found and then look how they're related to one another.

Not just explained, but related to one another and then how they're used in the New Testament context. So we can look at Ezekiel. We might get a certain conclusion out of it, but if the New Testament quotes something out of Ezekiel and says this is what it means, then that takes priority with who adjusts our interpretation of that. Which is why we have to go to Revelation and New Testament to see whatever's quoted from Ezekiel and Daniel and then relate it under the interpretation of Revelation.

However, here's another problem. Revelation is, some say it's chronological. And it may be, it may not be. Some say it's heptatic. And what that means is that there's so many sevens in there that there's seven seals, seven churches, seven bowls. Some think that Revelation is just a repetition of the same story seven times. So it's called a heptatic arrangement.

And so if I were to go, oh yeah, it's just another view. And then there's something called chiasm, chiastic structures. And chiastic structures were used in ancient literature to help in memorization and the flow and concepts so that people could remember things when they'd be talking and communicating. So there's different kinds of chiasm. And so it's best understood by looking on a piece of paper and you see how sentences are arranged. And the most common one I've used as an example is Acts chapter seven, starting at verse seven. Ask and you shall find, seek.

Ask and you shall find, seek and, ask and be given, seek you'll find, knock, the door will be open for he who asks, for he who seeks, for he who knocks. It goes A-S-K-A-S-K. That's a chiastic structure where the three things initiated are the same as the three repeated. But that's one kind. Another kind would be if you took a triangle, for example, and a pyramid, all right, you took the base off of the pyramid, so naturally two angles or two lines coming to a point, then you'd turn it sideways so that the points to the right.

Then you have chiastic structures which follow that pattern. And what that means is the very top of that line would be related to the last part of the second, or of the story, or the parable, or whatever it is. And it goes into a point, and that point is where the main point of the discussion is. And you can see this in the parable of the steward, the unjust steward, and also in the prodigal son. So if you were to go to CARM, my website, for example, and you were to look up parables.

So let me do this right now. So I go to CARM, let's see, I think it works this way,, none of you have been to my website, and type in forward slash parables. Then what happens is it goes, and you wanna find the prodigal son. And you open up the prodigal son, and then you'll see a chiastic structure right there. And then it'll make sense. And so the question I would have then is revelation a chiastic structure? Or is it sevens with chiastic structures within each seven? It just gets complicated.

This is the kind of stuff I study. And so that's why I say haven't done it yet. Just so much.

It is just a fascinating book, the Bible is just wonderful. And I had another question. Sure. Is that okay? Sure. Okay. Oh, I think it's Luke 13, the beginning. Okay.

Talks about a tower that fell. Yes. On 18 men, and Jesus said, the same thing will happen to you if you don't turn to me, or you will perish.

I mean, I can't quote it, but. Yeah, it's Luke 13, four and five. Are you supposed to be? Yes. Is that telling me that you don't know when you're gonna die? No. And if you don't turn to him?

No. First thing about understanding scripture, the very first thing is read the context. Now, on the same occasion, there was a president who reported to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with the sacrifices. And Jesus said, do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all the Galileans because they suffered at this point? I tell you, but unless you repent, you'll always likewise perish.

Or do you suppose that the 18 in whom the tower in Siloam fell, et cetera? I tell you, unless you repent, you'll likewise perish. So what he's doing is calling people to repentance. He's saying it to the crowds, and that's in Luke 1252. So he's just talking generically to people and calling them to repentance, okay? Okay, but it does say that it is appointed for man to die once and then the judgment.

Right, right, he was 927. I did hear that in church, okay. Are you worried about losing your salvation? Oh, no. Okay, good, all right, good.

No, I just wish this people could, I don't know, it just seemed like we had the gospel here and now it's gone, and it's just devastating. Well, let me really help you out and make it a little bit worse. It's just terrible. Because it is.

And it'll probably get much worse. And people don't- You ever read Matthew 7? Yes. Is that where it says the road to hell is broad?

Yes. Do you think people feel safe, like they're in a crowd of people and it makes them feel safe, like they can save them? And a crowd of people can't save your soul?

I don't get this. Well, what he's saying there is that many people go to hell and not that many people go to heaven. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do you think people today think they're safe because they're in this crowd of people that's against God? The people who are against God are under the judgment of God.

And that's Romans 1, 18 through 31. The judgment of God is upon them. They've been given over to the depravity of their hearts and their minds.

They're under judgment. It's just, it's shocking. I mean, I was raised in the 60s and 70s and it's shocking.

Yeah, I was raised there too and it was far more open then. There is an increase of ungodliness and an increase of bad things. We know that. And it says that in Timothy. Yes, it's 1 Timothy 4. In the latter times, some will fall away, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

That's right. Well, 10 years ago, I started studying the Bible and just reading that was just shocking to me. It's like, why does the Bible say that? It's just shocking to me, it's like, why does the world have to take a turn for the worst when Jesus came here and period, you know? It might be because Jesus took, Jesus experienced the worst and we follow after him and we will experience it like him, like our Lord. As he was mistreated, we are mistreated.

As he was mocked, we are mocked. People don't understand. Yeah, I understand that too. Yep, people don't understand. They think being a Christian means your life's gonna be easy. It doesn't mean that.

It could be. But in this country, it's easy. But there are people all over the world right now that are dying for their faith, being beheaded by Muslims, the murderous Muslims. Oh, I know.

Uh-huh. And so this is on the rise and our own country is turning against us. In fact, think about this. Our country is replacing. They can't destroy us from the outside or destroying us from the inside. The schools are liberal.

The government is open at the borders. Abortion for killing the people. COVID, which is a control thing, okay? They're trying to destroy us. The economy is tanking and this is, it's work. It's work to destroy this country because when America falls, then the communist socialist regimes out there, China and Russia will be able to move in.

We're the last hope. So this is what's happening, okay? I really feel like they're trying to just stop the middle class and they either want people rich or poor. Yes, that's what socialism does. It promises prosperity and delivers death. That's what it does, okay? Well, if you ask me, some people are blind.

A lot of people are blind. Deceived? Yeah, yeah, that's right. Don't it say that through the Bible?

Do you not be deceived? We just think what AT&T did, you know? Did you hear what they just did with Newsmax? Yeah, they just took Newsmax off, yeah.

Fourth largest cable rated cable thing. It's conservative, they took it off because they're liberal, because AT&T is liberal. And so that's, DirecTV took it off. So nothing to do with them anymore. Hey, we gotta go, okay? All right.

Okay, thank you so much. All right, God bless. Sorry, Jane, for waiting so long. A long time call. Hey, folks, wise Grace, back tomorrow. Talk to you then. Another program powered by The Truth Network.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-02-24 10:27:33 / 2023-02-24 10:47:04 / 20

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime