Share This Episode
Matt Slick Live! Matt Slick Logo

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick
The Truth Network Radio
March 21, 2023 5:10 pm

Matt Slick Live

Matt Slick Live! / Matt Slick

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 986 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

March 21, 2023 5:10 pm

Open calls, questions, and discussion with Matt Slick LIVE in the studio. Topics include- --1. Church Fathers-2. 13- Logic and the Christian Worldview-3. 19- Israel amount of Catholic Church culture, influence-4. 50- Unicorns in the Bible

The Christian Car Guy
Robby Dilmore
Running to Win
Erwin Lutzer
Grace To You
John MacArthur
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
Truth for Life
Alistair Begg

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry found online at When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live.

Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everyone, welcome to the show. You're listening to Matt Slick.

Matt Slick live. I'm your host, Matt Slick. Hey, if you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 8772072276. And let's see if you want, you can email me at info at There's a lot going on and checking through some of the emails so you can do that info at

We've got nobody waiting right now if you want to give me a call. Okay. Now, so I spent all day today working on one thing.

I don't know, I spent hours and hours and hours. I just went through researching Church Father quotes. The reason I did this is the Church Fathers are used by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to claim authenticity and authority for their particular church.

Now, you understand something. They believe in sola ecclesia. In other words, the church. You have to be a member of the church. The church tells the truth. The church is all about the truth. You have to be a member of the church. The church, blah, blah, blah.

It just gets old. And so one of the things they've said to me is that Protestant doctrines are not found in the early Church Fathers. And, you know, I've heard this before and I did a little bit of research, but today I went through and I found so much stuff in support of the Protestant doctrines. I found stuff where the Church Fathers will say that you can't be born again unless God works on you. That where people are chosen and elected. Where faith alone is for salvation. Where faith is granted by God.

And even federal headship. I found a quote from Athanasius on that. Also, perseverance of the saints and predestination. And I was surprised to find this, but I did. I found quotes where sin is related to illegal debt. These are really interesting quotes.

I'm looking for more. So I have, the church is the body of believers. Because they'll say that their church is the true church. I get so tired of that.

I really do. It's sad that people don't want to just believe the gospel. They want to believe their church is somehow true. If you think about that, you know, it's interesting because when I witness to people, I tell them about Jesus. And when I give the gospel, it's about what Jesus has done on the cross.

It's simple. You talk about him. He's God in flesh. He died on the cross. Three days later he rose from the dead.

And I tell people about the truth of who he is and what he's done. I don't want to talk about a particular church. Could you imagine if I said to somebody, well, my church on the corner, you have to believe in that church in order to be saved.

Well, they'd look at me like I was an idiot. What if I said, well, that church can trace its lineage back to the apostles. It went through, let's just say, the Mediterranean area. And then we had somebody move over from the Mediterranean a hundred years ago. And he started this church. And our church is that church.

People look at you like you're an idiot. But they say the same thing about the Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our church is the true church.

And you've got to belong to our church to be saved. I always get a kick out of it. Not in a good way, but a kick as in, are you serious? Come on. So anyway, so I was doing a lot of work today, so much so my head started hurting. I had to take a break. I didn't eat. I forgot to eat.

No, I had breakfast, but I didn't have much of anything else. And that's okay. Hey, look, why don't you give me a call? 8772072276. And let's see, just making sure the connection is working, the stack. And making sure that it is working. I'm not sure if it is because we got a message that something disconnected, so we'll see.

And if you want, like I said, you can email me at info at, info at, and maybe we'll have someone check to see if it is working right. So what I like to do a lot of times is just go to emails and see what people say about varying from emails, what kind of questions they have. We had a call coming in. That's good. And so I was in a chat room today just to take another little break.

Good. They can hear me good. And someone actually in a room put up an article of mine and was discussing some concepts in the article. So I thought, oh, I'm going to talk to them about it.

And they would not have me come. They wouldn't let me come up in this chat room to talk about the very article I wrote and what it means. And it was interesting. It was on Reformed theology. And I was up there. It even said, we see you, but they wouldn't let me come up.

They said, no, that's not correct or whatever. It was really interesting. I'm finding more and more that people are so entrenched in their traditions that they don't want to talk to people who disagree with them and who can give them another perspective. It's interesting. It's interesting to me. I've never been worried about having to face someone who has a different view. Maybe they have a correct view. I'm open to being taught from scripture, but a lot of people are not.

In fact, that reminds me. Recently I was talking with a friend about baptism. And he said that baptism always means immersion. And I said, does it? He says, of course it does. It always means that.

And after a 40-minute conversation, I asked him, does it always mean it? He said, no. Because I kept showing him scripture. I said, well, what does scripture say? Even when I showed him scripture, he had trouble believing what a scripture said.

I get it. Even though it's right there, even though it clearly says it right here. He was like, well, that's what I've always been taught. Well, what does it say? I had to go back. What does it say? What does it say?

And he goes, okay, yeah, you're right. It doesn't always mean it can, I guess. But it's just one of the things about our traditions and stuff. You know, that different people have different traditions that they like to fall upon and lean upon and draw strength from. I've never been able to understand that. Seriously, I just don't get it.

And maybe it's an emotional, mental flaw in me, but I just don't see any comfort in a church that's 500 years old or 1,000 years old or 2,000 years old. This is how you've always done it. To me, it's like, so? It doesn't mean it's right. What does the Bible say? That's how I am. And so when I encounter people who just believe that their church is the true church, this is the way things have always been, and the church father is always true. And I've been reading a lot more church fathers.

I'm not that impressed with them. Is that sound arrogant? I don't know. I read and I'm actually collecting quotes where they get verses that they interpret wrong.

I mean, it's wrong. They do stuff, but no, that's not what it's about. Like Cyprian, he said of John 6.65, that no one can come to be unless it's granted from the father, so that it is evident that no remission of sins can be received in baptism from the son, which is not plain from that the father is granted. That's what he said about the verse. That's not what the verse is talking about.

And so then there's Hillary of Poitiers. He says, get this, he says, this is of, what verse is that? Thus you can see, oh yeah, John 1.13, that's right, John 1.13, where it says we're born not of the will of the flesh, but of God.

And this is talking about who? In the plural, in the Greek, it's talking about the people, the Christians, okay? And he says, this is John of Damascus, and thus she can see the son of God, the hypostatic power of the father, not of the will of the flesh nor the will of man. That is to say, by the connection and the seed, but by the good pleasure of the father in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, that she can see the son of God.

That's Mary. It's not about that. And so I'm actually kind of surprised that the church fathers, which I've heard so many glowing reports about, have blown it in so many ways. But a lot of them have got really good stuff too, though. I gotta say that.

But it's like, oh, I thought they were better. Anyway, that's that. Hey, let's get on the phone with Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome. You're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. I have a question. You talk a lot about the Christian worldview when you're talking about the transcendental argument. What is the Christian worldview? Well, it's the worldview based on scripture. Okay.

Can you give any details about exactly what it is? A Christian worldview would include such things as affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of the second person, who's God in flesh, and that the nature of God himself is a necessary precondition for the basis of truth, that he created Adam and Eve, and that we fell into sin, and that truth comes from God, and the truth is that we've all fallen, and we need salvation and redemption in the blood of Christ, and it's by faith alone in him. And there's other elements of the Christian worldview, for example.

We have the right of self-defense, the right of representation, the right to help others, and things like that. There's a lot. Okay. What is the connection between what you call the laws of logic and the Christian worldview? Well, would you agree with me that God is the foundation, or let's say the ultimate cause of all things? Well, you're not answering the question. You're asking me a question.

Yes, you're right. I am asking a question. Because I'm trying to see if you'll agree with the logic of the connection. Because you see, God is the necessary condition by which all things have come to exist, either by direct or indirect means. Well, if you're asserting that God is creator, as of all things, then certainly that is a way of saying that everything comes from God.

He's called the ultimate cause. Nothing exists physically and through time and space unless it's been directly or indirectly brought about by God's existence. So the laws of logic, do they exist because they were brought into existence, or do they exist because they've always existed? But they can't always exist apart from God, so they have to be part of him. So the question, that is, did the laws of logic have eternal nature or do they not have eternal nature? Do they exist eternally or do they not exist eternally?

There's only two options. And I would say they exist eternally because they're part of the mind of God. They didn't come into existence. Where in the Scriptures do you see that logic is a part of the mind of God? Well, God says, let us reason together in Romans.

This could be in Isaiah 1. And there are if-then statements that God uses, and he declares things that are. So that's the law of identity. Something is what it is, not what it is not.

And so he can certainly recognize these things. What about the many different laws of identity? Are they also a part of the Christian worldview?

Well, I don't know. I'd have to see which ones they are to see if they're consistent. Well, what about the many different definitions of contradiction? Are they part of the Christian worldview? Well, they would also, everything that exists has to be part of the Christian worldview. Whether it's by permission or direct work, or whether it's a false statement or a true statement.

Because even the false statements ultimately have their existence that is necessarily, necessarily extant due to people who would deny God's existence, and they themselves exist because God has indirectly brought them up out. So hold on, we've got a break. Hey, we've got a break. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Hey everyone, welcome back to the show if you want to give me a call.

We have three open lines, 877-207-2276. Okay, Ryan, you're back on the air. Okay, the point that I was trying to make was there are many different definitions of identity and many different definitions of contradiction, and they contradict each other. And if all of these things are a part of the Christian worldview, it seems to me that means that the Christian worldview is contradictory. You also have contradictory theologies coming out of Orthodox Christianity. Whoa, whoa, you're smarter than that, Ryan, seriously.

You're smarter than that to make that mistake. Okay, you've got to understand that all things that exist exist by direct or indirect work of God, that there are people who speak lies. The lies don't mean that God doesn't exist, but they exist because God has indirectly allowed them to exist and the conditions exist by which they can then lie. And people can offer contradictory views of logic. It doesn't reflect the idea of the nature of God, it reflects the permission of God that he allows people to violate his divine will and his divine knowledge. How do you distinguish between something that reflects the thoughts of God and something that does not?

Well, by scripture. Okay, but we both know that scripture is the revelation of God, not the thoughts themselves. That is how God has revealed his thoughts and has nothing to do with the thoughts themselves. The only thing we know of God is what God has chosen, how God has chosen to reveal himself. So to say that something is a reflection of God's thoughts is not only not known, it's not knowable, because the only thing we know of God's thoughts is by the way in which he's chosen to reveal it.

Okay, let's work with that then. So do you affirm the doctrine, or excuse me, the statement that something is what it is, it was not what it is not. The law of identity, do you affirm its actuality? I affirm that that is one definition of identity, yes. Okay, so does that definition of identity, does it exist independent of all facts and context? It has a context, sure. Just that there are many different contexts.

But it requires context, doesn't it? Does it exist independently of God? Again, independently of God. Does it have an eternal existence that has the quality of a say, a sayity, independent of God? No, it is not eternal and it is not unchanging. It does indeed change. Okay, so something is what it is and is not what it is not somehow is not always true?

That's correct. Because you can also say a is identical to a is true, you can also say a is identical to not a is also true, and both of those statements be true. Okay, well let's work with a equals a. So a equals a is something is what it is, it is, right? And you're saying that something that is can also not be what it is?

Yes, of course. And by the way, you're still using the wrong terminology. It is not equal, that's a terminology of mathematics. If a is identical to a, that is a term of logic. Okay, so if a is identical to a, so is the apple I'm holding in my hand identical to itself? It is identical to itself right now, but it's also deteriorating, so it is changing molecularly, so in five minutes it's not going to be identical to what it is now. But when I make the statement, is it identical to what it is, right?

It is within a certain timeframe. Okay, so then it has its identity, and so it's like a carbon sphere. If you have a carbon sphere, is a carbon sphere equal to itself? Well of course it is, and it is, it's nature.

If you want to say half-life of carbon, which is 5,280 carbon-14, well then it's decaying at 5,200, it's nature, it still is what it is. My point is that when you say an apple is identical to itself, it's identical to itself within a certain timeframe, which is another way in which one can define identity. Or you can also define it within set theory, when you say two planets are identical to two planets, and you can have two different planets in each set, and it'd still be identical even though you have four different objects. So at an exact point in time, is a carbon sphere identical to itself?

Yes, sure, within a certain timeframe, sure. Okay, so then what justifies that it has its self-identity? It is simply, what do you mean, what justifies it? Well you make a statement, what justifies a statement of being true?

What's the basis of it? Is it a fact that's independent of God, or is it a fact that is dependent upon God? It's a fact that is dependent upon the world around us and our encounter with it. So it's not dependent upon God, I get you.

I didn't say that. I said the way we discover this is by encountering the world around us. We do this because we're existing things, and it's an existing thing, and that's a part of our discovery of the natural world. You shifted to empiricism. So I'm just asking you, is that thing independent of God? That's what I asked, you didn't answer that question.

Is it or isn't it? Okay, it is not independent of God, but the way in which we come to know its nature is because we're existing things. I'm not talking about, this is not an epistemological issue, it's an ontological issue, so you're mixing categories. So the statement has an ontos, doesn't it, that it has existence. Sure.

Okay, what's the ontos of such a statement? Okay, yeah, we can both agree that everything comes from God and therefore has no independent existence from God. There you go. But that's not the question of this, though. So the laws of logic ultimately are dependent upon God.

There you go. So what? There's still contradictory definitions of identity and contradiction. So are all of these definitions also dependent upon reflecting God's thoughts?

Yeah, no, no, no, not in no sense. Look, I already told you that you could have false statements exist because God permits them to exist in his world. That's how you know they're false, because they do not comport with the actuality of God's knowledge and mind and decree. These are not false statements about identity and contradiction.

They are simply a natural consequence of dealing with different kinds of statements, and when you deal with different kinds of statements, you have different definitions of identity and contradiction, and they are definitely true, just as true as saying something is identical to itself. So where does logic occur in the – where does it come from in the human's mind? It comes from our encounters with the existent world, the cosmos. Is it from chemical reactions in the brain? It is from our encounter as existing things and in the existing world. I just asked, is it from the chemical reactions in our brain? It involves the chemical reactions in our brain, certainly. I didn't ask you to involve. Is it from – are the chemical reactions a source of the logic?

I told you. It comes from our encounters with the world around us, and we can extract models from our encounters, and that's where it comes from. If we did not encounter the world around us, we would not have logic. Okay, I'm trying to get you to something here. Are the laws of logic, are they results of chemical reactions in our brain?

I don't know how many more times I can say this. It involves chemical reactions, but it is derived from our encounter of the world around us. We make models of those encounters.

You're not seeing the issue. If it's from chemical reactions and you don't have any way of justifying any truth values because nothing is then true, it's just chemical reactions. If you say they're involved chemical reactions, to what extent are they dependent upon or are they influenced by? Because if you're going to say the laws of logic are influenced by them, then the laws of logic are then dependent upon chemical reactions and influenced upon the physical world. But they're not properties of the physical world, so that's a problem.

This is why I asked this specific question. They are certainly properties of the physical world. No, they're not. They certainly are. Because properties are measurable.

We've got to go. But properties are measurable, laws of logic are not. Check it out. Of course they are. That's why you see they're independent. No, they're not.

You can't wave them or take pictures of them. We've got to break. We've got to go, buddy. Talk to you later. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. We have four open lines, 877-207-2276.

Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. All right, let's get on the phone with Jim from Florida. Hey, Jim, welcome.

You are on the air. Hey. Hey, Matt, can you hear me all right? I sure can.

What do you got, buddy? Great, great. Hey, first of all, I appreciate your show. Good. I am also reformed, and I love to listen to you just about every day. Wanted to tell you I had a little issue when you switched to Rumble, and I just find it a lot harder to work with than podcasts.

But, hey, that's okay, I understand the reason you're moving. We still have it on YouTube, and it's supposed to still be podcasted out, so I'm not sure. Maybe you could email us at, and Ernie can check it. I think he knows about it. Okay. But we have to go to Rumble. Will do.

Yeah, because the Gestapo is not liking the free speech. Yes, I totally understand. So my question, I want to start with, first of all, I know you just got back from Israel. I got to watch your show when you were showing pictures and going through all that, and brought back a lot of memories.

My wife and I were there in 2018 and 2020. So we kind of went with the same tour guide, different groups, but the same guide. And I noticed something, and I was listening for you to talk about it, and I never heard you say, really touch on it, because it sounds like you saw a lot of what I saw, what we saw. What I noticed was a lot of these sites, and you know, a lot of times it's like, oh yeah, this is exactly where Jesus did this or that, and we kind of know it's kind of the area, maybe not exactly the place. But I noticed a lot of Catholic churches or shrines, cathedrals, whatever you want to call them, built and kind of taken over these sites.

And I kind of understand that, you know, it's probably good because they were able to preserve them. But at the same time, what comes to mind is Capernaum. When we go there, and they're explaining to us, this was, you know, this is where the city was, and you see kind of the rubble that's left, and the outline of the housing. And then you look over, and our guide said, and right over here, under this structure is where we think Peter's mom lived.

And, you know, here's the USS Enterprise built right over the top of it. And I think you know what I mean. Does that bother you? I mean, I'm not trying to sling mud at Catholics, but everywhere we went, the garden, you know, where you go up to the top where it's all fenced in, and here's a huge, and everybody, oh, let's go in and look. You know, it's like, no, the importance is the garden, you know. So, I just wondered how you felt about that.

When people don't have Christ in them, they look for externals, things to touch. Okay, yeah. That's what it is.

That's good. So they want, you know, like, I don't know if you went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and they have that rectangular stone that supposedly Jesus was laid down upon after he died. Right, right. And so, you know, we have an archaeologist guy who says, nah, but at any rate, even if it were, who cares? I mean, that's nice, but some people will take items, lay them on that stone, and then those items have value, so they can bring them back, sell them, or they can just put them in their house and they can have them touch the very thing Jesus was on.

And I just see it, it's unfortunate because apparently they don't have Christ in their hearts, so they look for him elsewhere. Right. That seems to be what it is. Yes, and I feel the same way. It's like such a distraction. I mean, there were people bringing out, like, handkerchiefs and then dipping it back up and wiping it on their face, and it's like there's magic here. And it's like people look over this way, but, I mean, everywhere you went in that building, you know, there was a tomb of Jesus in there, but all the ornate, I mean, everywhere we went, you just can't get away from that. So, to me, that kind of takes away from the whole experience, but then again, like you say, I get that. Yeah, it helps me understand Catholicism better because it helps me understand their bondage that they'll have in response to the truth.

Right. They don't have the truth of who Christ is. They have the church and the church, you know, the sacred relics, the sacred icons, the sacred this, the sacred that, and it's their church has it. Their church has preserved it. Their church will touch their church. It's all about their church.

It's just a lie from the devil to get people to be in bondage. And it is nice, like in the Garden of Gethsemane. You've been there, and I brought back a small branch. It had fallen off the trees, but it had fallen, so I took this little branch back. In fact, where is it? I think it's behind me. I'm not even sure. And it's like, oh, hey, look, I brought this from the Garden of Gethsemane.

And people go, when I've shown it to you, they go, oh, cool. Okay. Yeah. That's nice. Yeah. Yeah. It's nice. Great. You're not going, oh, can I rub it in my chest?

No. Well, we got up early. We got up early one morning and walked over to the Sea of Galilee, right? I mean, you could walk right down there.

The water level is way low. And my wife found a stone with a hole in it that's like, look, it's a wait for a net, you know. And it's like, okay, we'll take it with us, but let's not, you know, idolize this thing. Yeah, sure. You know. But, yeah, same kind of thing.

You know, a little gimmick to take home with us. Okay, well, I don't want to take any more of your time, but I'm sorry. That's okay.

There's nobody waiting right now. But I brought back a stone from the area where David fought Goliath, and I brought a stone back, or pot shirt, I should say, from where Abraham and Lot were. Just, you know, okay. Just, hey, I've been there.

We got this from that area. And, you know what? You could have done it also. I should have. I didn't do it. I should have brought back a stone that did not cry out. There you go.

She just did not cry out. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And I've got so many pictures of it. And we want to do another tour next year going through the footsteps of Paul.

Go through Turkey and then Greece and Italy. And I want to do that. But, you know, I'm with you.

Oh, hey, let me ask you this. Did you try walking on water? I tried walking on water.

I can see you, Melanie. No. You did. No, I didn't even float in the sea. I went into the pool in the Vice Hotel and floated. Yeah, I floated in the sea the first time.

They had small water in that pool. Yeah, and you can really. Yeah. It's really amazing. I floated the first time I went. I didn't go the second time. I'd been there. There you go. You know, it's a lot of fun.

There you go. Well, it was pretty cold. I'm with you. I mean, we were there in February.

And the water was pretty cold, and it was a very cloudy day. And it's like, you know what? I'm so worn out. I'm going to go watch out the high-rise window. And I did. I watched them go down and had their fun, so. Yeah. Every time I've been there, or the two times that I've been there, the weather's been perfect every time.

I don't know why or what. Oh, okay. But, you know, it's been great. Right. And blue skies. Yeah. And everything was nice. Sure.

Sure. Well, if we got a little time, what was the, how about the, everybody gets baptized, okay, in the Jordan, at the official site where you go and you rent the gown and, you know, you go down the steps. I backed out of that because, you know, I've been baptized as a believer. I was sprinkled as an infant in a Presbyterian church.

I now go to the best Baptist church in Cape Coral. I'll leave it at that. But, yeah, I don't, I just couldn't do that. I didn't mind taking pictures of people that just had to do it. But, in my mind, it's like, you know, the only thing it's given me here is bragging rights, you know. Hey, I got baptized in the Jordan like Jesus, you know.

Any thoughts? I mean. Well, I think it's people who want to identify more and say, hey, they have been baptized in the Jordan. And I would do it. I would baptize someone else under the condition that they knew that this isn't a replacement baptism, but it's just a ceremony.

Right. And I say, you know, okay, that's fine. And when I went, I wasn't baptized there the first time. It's like, I don't need to be baptized.

I've been baptized. And I'm not complaining if anybody wanted to. And I would have if they asked me to. I would have done it as long as I knew that it wasn't.

No, my first one's not valid when I was in, you know, in some church or whatever. So, you know, people do want to connect. And that's okay. I like the idea of the connection.

It's up to them. Yeah. And I agree with that. I agree. I'm not adamant against it. I just personally felt like, you know, it's not necessary and I'll be glad to watch.

So, in fact, I got to nail down my. I'm sorry? Yeah. I'm with you just exactly the same way. It's not necessary. And I'd watch and enjoy the people who want to do that.

And I don't think God would get mad. Sure. You know, so you've been baptized again. Okay.

You know, we're going to get you for this. That's not going to do that. Right. All right. Let me give you one more quick thing. So, our guide was a Jewish lady whose grandfather was a member of the Sanhedrin. Okay. Wow.

She grew up in England, even though she was a full-blooded Jew and very knowledgeable. And, of course, most of it's Old Testament, you know, the teachings that they teach while you're there. And, I mean, it's like drinking from a fire hose. You probably know that, right? Yeah.

Oh, yeah. We got a break. We got a break. So, I want to hear what you have to say, because, you know, we just got a break.

It's a heartbreak. So, hold on. Okay, buddy. All right. Hey, folks. We'll be right back after these messages.

Four open lines. Call 877-207-2276, we'll be right back. Okay.

Just messed myself up. All right. Hey, let's get back on here with Jim. All right, Jim. There you go. Sorry about that.

Okay. So, before the break, I was saying, on our very first trip over, which was 2018, of course, you know, we go over, eyes wide open, and, hey, you know, we're in Israel. Our tour guide was a Jewish woman named Jane that grew up, well, I guess she was born in Jerusalem, but ended up moving to England, et cetera. But her grandfather was one of the members of the Sanhedrin, so she was very, very knowledgeable. I mean, these are professional guides.

They're well-studied. Sure. You heard it all. I'm sure.

Mm-hmm. Well, on the very first trip, I asked our tour guide from the U.S. I said, hey, or I guess our travel agent guy, I don't know what you call him, I said, you know, hey, man, how about, you know, Jane's a Christian, and he said yes, and I said, enough, happened to give her testimony on the bus one morning while we're driving somewhere, you know. We all would love to hear about a Jew that came to Christ, you know.

He said, I'll see what I can do, you know, while I waited, and I waited, and we waited. Never happened, okay. And it kind of bothered me just a little, and I thought, well, I'd really love to know her story. I just didn't have the guts to walk up and ask her or so.

Okay. In 2020, we're at this, again, at the Jordan River, where all these baptisms are going on, and she's got basically a whole lot of time to stand and watch, and I caught her by herself, and I said, Jane, can I talk to you? And I mean, she kind of knew me, because now I've been on two trips with her. And I said, I'd just like to ask you about becoming a Christian, becoming a believer in Jesus Christ, you know, and she kind of looked at me, and I said, can you kind of tell me about that? And she said, well, she said, yeah, I believe in Jesus, you know, and I said, okay. And I said, what kind of church are you going to these days? And she said, well, I've just joined a Catholic church, and I thought, what? I said, can I ask you why, because I was about, I about fell over when she said that. And she said, well, I really like the ritual, and the liturgy, and, you know, here we go, you know, and it's like, I didn't know what to say. And I got, I don't, I remember this was five years ago. And you start telling her what the Catholic Church teaches. That's what I would have done. I said, well, I kind of brought up some things.

Yes. And it landed on Paul, and she said, well, we don't put a lot of stock in the things that Paul taught. And I said, okay, Jesus did. Jesus did. And when people say that to me, I say, well, Jesus did. He called Paul personally. He specifically went to him on the road to Damascus, and specifically called him.

So apparently, Jesus has a high regard for him, and what he was called to do. Do you also? And, you know? Yeah. Yeah.

Well, Matt, you're very well versed in that. And some of those things just don't quite pop into my head that quick. But I think I was just floored with her telling me that she just, you know, became a member of a Catholic Church. So yeah, I pretty much ended the conversation there.

And you know, because I think I was just blown away, and it's like, I've got to chew on this. So anyway. Yeah. Well.

That grew me. It would, yeah. But I would have, you know, me, I got comebacks, usually. Right. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

No, you're good at it. I've heard you for quite a while now. All right. Well, listen, I'm going to let you go. All right. Have a blessed evening. Appreciate what you do. All right.

And I'm going to continue to listen to you, and we are going to support you. All right? All right. Thank you. All right.

Yes. And you have a good evening. Goodbye. All right. Oh, and Jay, Charlie did a good job while you were gone. Yes, he did.

I know it was a challenge, but he did a good job. Yeah. All right. He's a good guy.

He is a good guy. All right. Take care.

Appreciate it. Bye-bye. All right. Bye-bye. OK, bye. All right. Well, there we go. And we've got about 10 minutes left in the show. If you want to call me, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Rudolph. Rudolph, welcome.

You're on the air. Yes, sir. Are the unicorns missing in the Bible the same as the unicorns that we've seen in movies today?

No. No, a unicorn, it's a mythical creature, and it was unfortunately a translation, Isaiah 34-7 in the King James, which is another reason to not use the King James, because it does things like that. But the word in Hebrew is ra'im, ra'im, I think it is, ra'im. And I'm looking at it, and it's translated as unicorn nine times, probably the great aracus or wild bulls, which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known. So that's it.

You know, it's just the King James, it was pretty good for its time, but there are problems like that in it. Yeah. So what kind of unicorn is it? It's not, unicorn's the wrong word, all right? It's the wrong word. So it's not, there's not an issue of what kind of unicorn is it?

There's just, it's just the wrong word, they shouldn't have used the word, okay? Okay. Yeah.

That makes sense. Okay, well, I'm going to tell my friends that unicorn's only used. Yeah, it's... I told him yesterday that they did. No. No, the horse with the horn out of its forehead doesn't exist. I've not seen any fossil evidence of anything in the past, and the reason I say that is because 98% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. So if there was a creature that is fossilized that had a single horn like that as a horse kind of a creature, I'd say, well, maybe they're referring to that.

I'd look at the documentation and see, but I don't even know of anything like that. I think it's just a mistake out of the King James translators. Okay. Well, thank you very much.

I do appreciate them. I just called my friend and told him that I was wrong. Okay.

Thank you. And he'll say... Just say, yeah, some guy named Slick on the radio said so. So that's all... They just... Told me, yeah. Told me I was wrong.

Yeah, I will. I was wrong. He listened to you. He listened to you as much as I do, so. Okay.

He's probably listening right now. All right. Well, good. Take care, man.

I'll talk to you soon. Okay. Well, God bless. God bless you. God bless you. All right, Rudolph. All right.

We have nobody waiting right now if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. His call reminds me of something. There's a movie coming out, and I forgot the name of the movie.

Something 47 or 46 has to do with the idea of homosexuality in the Bible, because the word homosexual did not occur or was added to the Bible in like 1946 or something like that. Yeah, maybe it was a rhinoceros, Jim. Yeah, that's a good point. It could be a rhinoceros. And so, about the unicorn, maybe it's just a, you know, they just called it rhinoceros or unicorn. It's a possibility, you know.

It wouldn't be a narwhal, but anyway, I'm stretching with that one. So anyway, this movie, maybe someone knows what the movie name is. I've already written a little bit about it, I think. Let's see if I've written this.

Karm movie. Let's see. I thought I did, or I had an article, maybe I didn't, or something getting ready for it. Anyway, here's what the point about it is, that the word homosexual did not exist until the 1900s. And so, in the early Bibles, homosexuality is not mentioned by the word.

And so, the logic is that people are going to make a movie, or are in the process of making a movie, which they want to put out all over the place, and it's going to try and promote the idea that homosexuality is biblical, and that the word homosexual didn't occur, and it was just added in by intolerant bigots. So this is the basic thing. Maybe someone knows what the, if you've heard about that, anyway. I have to do some preemptive work on it, and release an article, release, when you get a camera going. And by the way, thanks, folks, for the camera funds. Now we've got to try and get them. We met our goal, and we're trying to figure out how to get them out, and we're having trouble with that. But I think we've got to wait a couple days or something for some rule or something, but we'll figure it out. And when we do, I'll talk more about it.

But nevertheless, so the issue here is, I want to try to bring this up about this point. So the word did not exist until the 1900s, and then it was inserted into modern translation. So the logic is, because the word didn't exist, and it was inserted, therefore homosexuality is okay, and it was not a problem until the bigots, the intolerant bigots, the intolerant Christian bigots, started adding it. The logic is fallacious, because the concept of homosexuality is certainly taught and condemned in scripture. The general word in the New Testament for homosexual is arsenicos, which means man better. And it means a bed, a man who lies in bed with another male. And that's what it means. And the word is used in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and it's also used in 1 Timothy 1, 10, that immoral men, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God. And so this is just one of the things that's coming out. With the enemy of the gospel, the enemy of the truth, those who deny the truth, those who seek their own pleasure above the word of God, seek to interpret the word of God to make it fit and to prove their rebellion and their sin against God. This is what's happening.

It's happening more and more. And so I need to produce something on this, and others will as well, exposing this fallacious argument that they have. The problem is I can't really write an article on the movie until I've seen the movie, and the movie's not out.

So I can only do stuff on preliminary information and say, this is preliminary, it could change. This is the quote I've heard from so-and-so who's working on the movie, we know that kind of a thing. And I am looking for information about that, because homosexuality is definitely a sin, and it's a great sin. I think it's the only sin I'm aware of in the scriptures where you commit it, you're judged for it now, and that you're given over to the judgment right now. I don't know of another sin.

Why would that be the case? Why would God be so severe about this? Well, it's very simple. In the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of God, he has a hierarchical structure. God does within his own essence and being in the persons of the Trinity. So the Father sent the Son, the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit.

There's a hierarchy. They're equal in their nature and their essence in all things, but one sends another, et cetera. So this shows order, and it shows regularity, and also God creates. God's creation is part of his nature. So when he created man and man's made of this image, he said to man, now multiply, fill the earth, subdue it. So it's a form of creation, not bringing anything into existence out of nothing. We're having children. We are cultivating the land, farms, and it's a governing, which is what God does in creation.

He's given this kind of a thing to us. In order to do that, you need male-female to have children in order to multiply and fulfill the dominion mandate, is what it's called. Homosexuality is an attack on the dominion mandate, and it's also an attack on something else. So the only way the Messiah could be born by which we could be saved is through male-female relations producing offspring in the people of Israel. And so homosexuality before then is ultimately an attack on the arrival of the Messiah. So it's a double attack on the very nature and work of God in the dominion mandate and in the redemptive work of God. So this is one of the reasons, two of the reasons why homosexuality is such a bad thing and why it is so evil in God's sight and why he judges people for it now. And he gives them over to the depravity of their heart and their minds to do those things which are not natural.

This is Romans chapter 1, and maybe we could talk about this tomorrow if you want to talk about certain verses in the Scriptures. We could talk about it. I've written a lot about it, and there you go. Oh, I do have the article.

The word homosexual didn't appear in the English Bibles until 1946. That's right. There it is. I wrote an article on it. How about that? Hey, folks. By God's grace, back on there tomorrow, and we'll talk to you then. Have a great evening.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-03-21 10:23:47 / 2023-03-21 10:44:43 / 21

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