Matt Slick Live

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 KARM.org. 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. Everybody, welcome to the show. It is me, Matt Slick.

You're listening to Matt Slick live. I hope you're all having a good day and, uh, boy, um, for some reason, the camera I'm using just stopped or something. I don't know. We'll get it figured out here.

But, uh, yeah, I'll be broadcasting, uh, to stuff here a little bit. We got a problem. Oh, we have problems every now and then.

So, uh, I don't know why the, uh, that's so interesting. It just stopped working. Uh, so anyway, you've got the microphone working, but not the video camera working.

I don't know why it's not working. Anyway, we'll get to that. So there you go. Hey, look, if you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. If you want to give me a call. And also, uh, we're streaming to Discord on the KARM server and also in Clubhouse. Um, if you want to go there, I think we're, the room's going up.

I'm checking it out right now. And as always, if you want to email me, all you got to do is, uh, just address your email to info at karm.org, info at karm.org. You can do that. And if you do that, then, uh, everything should be fine. I can, I can, uh, check out your comments and your questions, read them on the air. Okay. Well I'm working on stuff simultaneously trying to get things to work.

Oh man, so much stuff to do. All right. We've got the calls coming in.

Why don't we just, just dump on them. Let's set to Mike from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Mike, welcome.

You're on the air. Uh, hey Matt, uh, this is kind of a political question, but there's also a biblical one, uh, that comes after it. But anyway, the political question is, have you heard about the report about the FBI abuses, uh, the FBI, the CIA, the national security, uh, administration, uh, other abuses against American citizens, violations of the constitution. Um, have you heard of that report or seen that report? No, I haven't.

I would like to though. Oh, okay. Actually there's two reports. The most recent one is called the Durham report and the Durham report.

Yeah. It, you know, brings out all these things. Now, the other report was back in the 1970s and it said almost exactly the same thing, except that it went even further because apparently these agencies, uh, abuse their power in terms of, uh, drugging people using psychedelic drugs, that kind of stuff. Uh, it was called the church, church commission. It was investigated by the Senate and they came out with all this stuff, um, about what these agencies had done in violations of the constitution, investigating people illegally, uh, uh, illegal wire caps and the whole thing. And if you read that report and then you read the Durham report, except for the drug part, they're almost identical.

Wow. And yet one occurred, one was reported in the 1970s, it's called the church commission report and the other one is the current Durham report and about, and it also talks about the illegalities and the Biden administration, all those, the, the, the, the money that has flowed in from China, Russia. And we're not talking about, you know, hundreds of dollars. We're talking about millions of dollars, 10, $20 million that they funneled through, um, uh, these, uh, actually what they were was what was money laundering because they used, uh, LLCs, they set up like 20 LLCs to channel the money through to different members of the Biden family. And of course, a lot of this was not reported on income taxes, but you know, you talk about the Biden crime family, this Durham report.

But the other thing in the Durham report says they're not going to charge anybody because they don't think they can get a conviction in Washington. Now that is scary. But the fact that this is, this is a repeat performance, right?

And what does the Bible say about what is it? If you don't punish wrongdoers or something to that effect, I'm trying to recall the passage that wrongdoing has to be punished, right? Otherwise it increases. Yes. Otherwise, yeah, it increases and it goes on. It doesn't change, which is exactly what happened with, with the, um, with the church commission report back in the seventies that nobody was punished, you know, violations of the constitution all over the, I mean, they experimented on, on American citizens, on, on people. I think some of them were in the military. Yes.

I'm on stuff like that. Our government, uh, well, when, when a government turns against its citizens, when it fails to guard its borders, when it works in concert with the enemies of the country, concert with the enemies of the country, when the leaders take bribes and seek their own welfare, then, uh, we have a country that will fall. It's not possible.

It will. This is what history always shows us and this is what's happening to America. And not only we have those problems, of course, we have the, the, uh, idiocy of, of sexual identity, which means the underlying problem here is, absolute truth doesn't exist.

You can be whatever you want to be. This is the problem. And among other things. And so with this fomenting and fermenting inside of our culture or thing, it's just a matter of time before a country has an economic collapse. And when that happens, I believe Russia and China will try and come in and occupy certain areas. Yep. Right. I think now notice that to happen though, they have to get rid of our guns.

So they're going to be trying there. So we're like, I'll get rid of our guns. So it's all part of the, you know, you know, it's just, okay.

So, right. And the thing about the terms commission in the, in their conclusion, it said these things have to be addressed. These, these wrongdoings have to be, the things have to be changed and things were changed, but nothing changed in terms of what they were doing and what they warned against was that we would have a tyrannical government. And that's where we're headed for is tyranny. Yeah, absolutely. Um, and, um, the Bible is so clear on, on, on what happens when wrongdoers and, you know, especially people in the government don't do what they're supposed to, you know, and we have an ungodly government.

I mean, we kicked God out of our institutions and the church has gone wimpy on us and anyway. Okay. Well, at least you haven't.

I haven't. I have, I've thought a lot about it and, uh, you know, I've weighed the options of what to do and it's very difficult for me to, to do everything I'm doing. I have so many things that I'm working on. And I know I just don't have time and I want to be able to do that.

And I wish we had a lot of money coming in, a lot of money so that we could hire individuals to work in those particular areas and write articles and write them on a biblical perspective on what's going on. Uh, but you know, it's just not happening right now. And, uh, we, you know, I don't have to tell you, but that's what it is. It's, we're in bad shape.

Our country's in bad shape. It's going to fall. It's going to. Yep. That's right. Yep. That's right.

That's why I tell people, you know, prep up, uh, just start getting ready. It's saying things are going bad. It's, you know, it's what it is. Yep. I know.

Pretty depressing. Okay. Some people, one person asked a question.

I appreciate. Yeah. One person asked a question, uh, and my initial response was, well, no. And then I started thinking about it. Um, and I still say, no, someone said, has the tribulation started? You know, no, it hasn't. And I've been, wait a minute.

How would I know? It was just a thought, but the way things are going, man, I mean, we're just being led down this, this road to destruction. Oh, it's so, so obvious. Anyway. And the agencies that are supposed to protect us against this are corrupt.

Hmm. Yes they are. And it's, I mean, the attorney general of the United States is not supposed to be political. He's not, but he is.

This one is absolutely. Yeah. They are, uh, they're evil people.

And when good men do nothing, the wicked prosper. That's what's happening. Right. Right. And one of the things we do have political prisoners, if you look at the January six indictments and the people that are being prosecuted and the evidence against them is so lame. I mean, this is, these are all political prosecutions.

Absolutely. I mean, some of these people did nothing. And there were agents, they were FBI agents that were working to stir people up within those crowds. And, uh, that's against the law, but that's, that's, that was part of the church commission back in the seventies, said that that's what they did. That's right. You know, that they use informants, uh, paid informants to, uh, prosecute people afterwards illegally and wiretap. I mean, it's, the parallels are striking. And it's, it's like we're back in the 1970s again and the abuses of the FBI. Right. Yeah.

And I, I want to collect more information on this, but I don't want to get too, too depressed into people. I actually stopped watching news now. I actually finally gave up on watching news because it makes me so angry and it's so depressing because it's just so bad. I did the same thing. I can't watch it anymore. Yeah. There are times I have to just turn the radio off or not go to, um, I've given up on Fox now and, you know, basically, uh, go to, um, you know, uh, podcasts by individuals that I trust, you know, so I'm with you and hopefully Tucker will, I don't know if he started his podcast or it will be, I mean, I'm sure he'll go into that kind of, uh, reporting, uh, make a fortune doing it.

God bless him. But, uh, you know, I don't even trust Fox anymore. No, I don't trust Fox anymore either. I don't watch Fox. And, um, I re we watch, uh, uh, Newsmax.

And so that's what I'll watch more and they're pretty good. Um, but you know, we'll see what's going to happen. Uh, but you know, I just want to be double too depressing, but there's more going on behind the scenes. There's even more than what you've said. They have not gotten there, uh, just suddenly they've been in place. And they have a network of stuff behind the scenes working and to root it out is going to be extremely difficult to the Christians need to really start praying and God can certainly work miracles, but this was what needs to happen.

We need to be praying a lot. Yeah. Well, just to show you how evil that this evil has been with us for a while because in the, in the, um, uh, church report, um, that they did by the Senate, they basically also said that the Warren commission report on the Kennedy assassination was a joke. They actually said there was a conspiracy. And I think that conspiracy was within the U S government, the CIA.

Yeah. I mean they connected some dots and some of this information is coming out now, but it's trickling. It was supposed to all be released in 2017, but Trump didn't do it. I guess the CIA told him not to. Uh, Biden has trickled out a few documents from that era, but it was all supposed to, all this stuff was supposed, all this information that they had, that the government was supposed to be released in 2017 and it wasn't, it was not released as they assumed by 2017 all the, all the characters, all the players in there would be dead.

But, um, I mean there were assassinations. Mm hmm. Are you aware of the Bohemian club and um, the Illuminati and then also the issue of the masons? Are you familiar with all those groups? Yes. Well, I'm, I'm kind of familiar with them, but I don't know a lot of details about them. They're worth studying, they're worth studying. And uh, you know, how much of it is a disinformation?

How much of it's true? Don't know, but we're in bad shape. Okay. There's a break buddy. So we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. Okay. God bless you. Bye bye. Bye bye. It's Matt slick live taking your calls at eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six.

Here's Matt slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Just let, let you guys know for those who were struggling with the video aspect. I rebooted the computer during the break.

Can't get it to the camera to work. Don't know why. Won't worry about it right now. Let's get to, let's see.

Next longest waiting person is Ed from Virginia. Ed, welcome. You are on the air. Hey, how you doing, man? Doing all right. Hanging in there, man.

What do you got buddy? Hey, I'm just wondering, thinking of Mordecai where the Israelites under the biblical law when they were in exile, they still were. Yes.

Okay. Cause I find it interesting that here, Mordecai, he broke Levitical law when he said, Hey, let's put Esther up for a beauty contest and she can marry this King who is a foreigner. Uh, and then the fact that Esther accepted, I thought that was interesting.

And then the fact that he put on contest, right? Well, how's he breaking Levitical law there? I'm cause I'm curious.

Because it's an interesting comment. Didn't God say do not intermarry with a foreigner? Yes, that's true. Yeah. And they were doing a lot of bad stuff. So here's the thing about the Bible. It records, uh, bad stuff that people did.

Doesn't mean it's always good. Right. Yeah. So I was just curious about that. And then the fact that, that Esther accepted, and if Esther lost, she would have become a concubine. Yeah.

There's some gambling going on. I'm going to read all that and keep it in mind. Yeah. That's interesting. Yeah.

I thought that was pretty interesting. I was like, are they still under Levitical law? I asked that. Well, no, they're not.

Cause they're in exile. So, you know, I didn't, I didn't know what the case was in that sense. So that Mordecai wasn't a great guy. You would think he is. He becomes, you know, the hero in the end, but it doesn't sound like he began that way. Yeah. That's often the case with people in the Bible. I've had people over the years ask me questions. Why does it, you know, so-and-so does that make great a guy in the Bible?

Should we trust him? I kind of chuckle. Well, you know, David murdered, uh, someone so did Moses. I mean, they're not perfect and that doesn't excuse it, but they record the failures of these people as well. That's one of the things about the scriptures.

It records the good and the bad. And so that's what we have to understand. Yeah. They blew it in a lot of situations, particularly in the exile. Why are they doing this? Why they shouldn't be doing these things, but if they didn't comply, they could be killed and the people wiped out. So I don't blame them for doing certain things and not doing others, but you know, it's, it's just a, it's a tough one because like I said, the Bible records everything.

It doesn't just record what's good, you know, but what their mistakes were too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I just thought I just wasn't sure if he was under Levitical law and he was disciplined or if they weren't under law, you know, but just looking at the whole story, it works out all great. But when you look at the beginning, it's like, that's a little weird. That's good. I'll have to check it out and see what's going on because there's always something going on. Oh, there's just so much and that's good. I'm smiling, but man, there's a lot going on in the Bible.

A lot to study. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Well, good. Appreciate it. Well, all right. Appreciate that. All right.

Maybe someone has a better insight and they can call in and let us know. So it'll be good. All right. All right, man. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Take care. Okay.

Good question and stuff. All right. Let's get to Julian from California. Hey, Julian.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, man. How you doing? All right.

What do you got? That's good. So yeah, I wanted to point out a formal contradiction with, uh, the idea of God's omniscience. So do you take it that God knows all true propositions? Define true proposition. Right. So, uh, proposition is just a bearer of truth. So it's a statement that can be true and true proposition is one of these statements that has a condition of truth in virtue of there being some sort of like translucent access to the truth there upon a conceptual analysis.

So the idea would be that there's a period of truth that would help us escape from the infinite regress of reason as to why the proposition is obtaining. Okay. So you went with the free gaze, a propositional definition for gut love. What'd you say?

I'm sorry. Because there are different understandings of this. Uh, there's, you know, free gay, uh, he, he taught something. He said, uh, thoughts are do not require an owner, even if they exist, even if they're present in their mind. And that, uh, these, um, uh, propositional things are realms of abstract, eternal entities. Uh, Bertrand Russell, uh, he affirmed that this is a proposition is taking them into complexes of ordinary concrete objects. GE Moore says, uh, that, uh, the existence of propositions taken them to be broadly freaky and in nature in particular as being complexes of mind, independent platonic universals. So when people start talking about propositions, uh, I always get a little bit confused because they can offer definition. We could work with a particular definition, not that that definition is correct because even in philosophical corners, they're arguing about what propositions are. They're just truth bearing, uh, entities, right? Right. But on your view, the proposition couldn't exist outside of God's mind, right?

Yeah. God knows all things that are true and he knows all things of counterfactual, all things, potentiality and the things that you and I could think that and believe in that are, that are false, like your atheism. So you deny God's existence. It's a truth proposition that, that you believe it, but the ultimate truth value is false.

Right? Well, we don't. So the point is that like if there are no propositions that exist independently of God's mind, then God knows all true propositions. And if God knows all true proposition, then that means there's a set of all true propositions. And that set entails a contradiction. It's a formal contradiction. Okay. What is set of God's knowledge?

Why would a set of God's knowledge be a contradiction? No, it's a set of proposition set of all true proposition. Okay. Define a proposition again. Give me an example of a proposition. I already did that.

I mean, we can just take care of what a proposition. No, no, no, no, I'm not. No, I'm just saying, you don't. Okay. Nevermind.

Give me an example of a true proposition. Yeah. The cat is on the mat. Okay.

The cat is on the mat. Okay. All right. So you're saying that all truth propositions could truth propositions be also including counterfactuals? Well, counterfactuals are, uh, propositions where the antecedent is presumed false because it's not obtained in the actual world. However, there's a possible world where that antecedent is going to obtain in virtue of there being an accessibility relation.

So it could have been the case that for example, if it were raining outside, I would have crashed. So that, that counterfactuals is subjunctive conditional. The antecedent is false because it wasn't raining outside in the actual world, but it's obtaining in some possible world where it could have rained. No contradiction there. So in virtue of it obtaining in some possible world, there's some accessibility relation between that and the other possible world. He knows all possible worlds, therefore he knows all counterfactuals, right?

Right. So yeah, that would be, that would be a contradiction. A contradiction. No, it's not a contradiction to say that God knows all potentiality.

No, it is. Because if he knows all propositions, whether they're counterfactual or not, he, that, that set of propositions that he knows would entail a contradiction formally because there'd be a proper set. This is set theory.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. God would know the propositional truth value that if it rains here on this day tomorrow, then this will occur. He would know that propositional truth.

It could be a counterfactual, but would be an absolute truth in his mind giving his infinite knowledge. Hold on. We've got a break. Hold on.

Okay. Hey, folks, I enjoy this. We'll do this for a little while longer, but a eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six. Give me a call. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live. Taking your calls at eight seven seven two zero seven two two seven six.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show.

Let's get back on the, uh, the horse here. Let's go a little more, uh, fun intellectual stuff. Julian, are you still there?

Yeah, I'm still here. Okay. Would you agree that a proposition is a shareable, shareable object of the attitudes and primary barriers of truth and falsity? Uh, I wouldn't agree with that. I'd say propositions are extra linguistic and abstract forms that obtain in virtue of the represent, uh, the representational properties.

All right. So what you're doing is, you're assuming a truth value that you're not substantiated as being true. And then you're working from that position. So you're begging the question to begin with. Furthermore, no, it has nothing to do with truth at this point.

Cause it's really just about justification. Yes, it does have to do with true. No, we just had it. No, no, we just had a statement value of definition. Is your definition of propositions true or is it not true? Is that what a proposition is?

Yeah, right. So on my view, it's true. But the question is, what is the truth predicate doing on the deflation? Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Guy, guy, guy, stop, stop, stop, stop, slow down. So you, you're affirming that there's an absolute truth that you hold to and its definition of proposition. No, is that not correct? No, no, no. Cause I just said, so then it's true.

So then it's true on my view. Okay. Hey, would you hold on Julian? Julian, stop one more time.

I'm a hang up on you, Julian. It's not your radio show. Okay. If I ask a simple question, I don't need a lecture. Okay. Are you capable of giving short answers? Yeah. Oh, there's one.

Good. So how do you know your definition is the right one to use or are you just assuming it is? Um, well, I have a external justification. So the external justification of your belief, is that a transcendent truth or is it subjective to your preferences of what you observe about outside? No, it's a mere, it's a mere illogical value property. A mere illogical. So it's based on sensory input and your analysis rationalistically, which is subjective.

Come on. No, you're not, you're not giving me any foundation to work with. Look, you're not giving me any foundation to work with here. You're assuming certain things. And in fact, you're assuming the laws of logic and their universal value and even argue, but you can't even justify the universality of those from how they relate to propositions that are truth values because propositions are shareable objects of attitudes and primary bearers of truth and falsity.

How do I know this? Because I've had this discussion with lots of atheist philosophers, shareable object, some sort of like proposition or object that people can think about. Grass is green. You gave me something, you gave me a definition. I went to work with it, but then there's a God love free gate. There's Bertrand Russell, there's GE Moore, different definitions of propositions. If you're going to go on to argue something based on a propositional view, you're assuming a certain value. What I do with people, as I say, demonstrate to me that's the correct starting point.

If you can't do it, then how is it under trust? Your argument is being valid if you don't even have the way of justifying the truth, the, uh, the starting partner definition. Well, even if it were the case that on my view, I wasn't able to justify the foundation of what I, what I think would be a proposition. It still wouldn't make your view.

We're not talking about the truth of mind. You said you have a proof that God doesn't exist. That's what you're working with, but you can't justify the premises that you're working with.

So you're, you're, you failed. Well, first of all, I didn't say that I have a proof he doesn't exist. I have a formal contradiction with his omniscience. Okay. Well, let's work with that. Let's just get into, why is it that God's omniscience is self contradictory?

Right. So if God knows all true proposition, then that means there's a set of all true propositions that he knows that set of all true propositions would have proper subset of that set, which would collect a set of unique identifiers. So there'd be a set of propositions. That's a set, that's a subset of the set of all and only true propositions. That is a set of unique identifiers. And the reason why there'd be a set of unique identifiers is because this set of unique identifiers would be, they'd be identifying all propositions in the set of true and only true proposition. So the question is if, if a proposition in that set of unique identifiers is a member of that set of unique identifiers or not.

And what we see is when we plug in, when we plug it into the entrance conditions formally in the derivation. Okay. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. You're just, you're just throwing stuff out. And, uh, I'm trying to write down what you're saying and you're just introducing all kinds of concepts and terms. So you're not doing anything other than basically wasting our time. Look, um, um, you're just throwing stuff out. Okay.

I tell you what, try this, try writing it down and sending it to me and explain your terms, what those terms mean, when I'll analyze them. I've asked atheists to do this over the years and gone through and I put up the refutations on the current website. I've got lots of them.

You're not the only one who's tried to work with subset theory. Okay. So I'd like to, that's fine.

I'm okay with doing that. Now the only thing I'd ask is if I'm going to do that, I'd ask you on this phone call to concede right here. And then we, concede what?

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, stop, stop, stop. Concede what? That God is not the God is not all knowing. What you make no sense. You said if God's all knowing he has, there's a set, it's a complete set of his, all his knowledge. Then you said there's a subset of that knowledge, which means that it's simply something within the knowledge that he already has. And then what you're trying to do is set the set, the subset against the whole set.

It's ridiculous. If God knows everything and he has subset knowledge, then he knows what that subset is because it's part of the overall knowledge. You know, for you to formally, if he knows formally, no, no, break, break it down, dude, dude, no, no, just stop, stop, stop, break it down.

Okay. So God has a subset of, of, of, uh, knowledge, right? So he knows all propositions and he knows counterfactuals because those are part of the propositional knowledge of God. So he knows a subset of counterfactuals, right? So how does the counterfactuals mean that he doesn't have all knowledge since he knows about all counterfactuals? Well, it's not because of the counterfactuals. It's because of the set of all true propositions.

So the counterfactuals are the set of all true propositions. This is the problem. You haven't defined and established what a true proposition is. You just give me an opinion and your prep, your assumption of it is catered to your argument. You're begging the question. I granted, I granted your notion of what a true proposition is and the contradiction still holds.

No, it does not. There is no contradiction. God knows all things, right?

He knows all things actual as well as potential. That's the Christian perspective. Now tell me how God knowing everything means that God can't know everything. Because if he knows everything, that means he knows all true propositions. Okay, hold on.

Instead of all true propositions would have a proper subset. Hold on, hold on, stop, stop, dude. You're wasting time. You're wasting time.

You're wasting time. And I've asked you specifically, how is it that God, if he knows everything is also the case that he does not know everything. He does not know everything. How does that the case?

Because there'd be a, there'd be a proposition that is in the set and not in the set at the same time. So wait a minute. So you're saying then that it's both the case that God would know something and also not know something is what you're working with. When the Bible says that God knows everything and you're saying it's not the case. Okay. You're, you're, you're whacked.

Sorry. What I try and do with the atheist is, um, try and break down their arguments to something. And I have noticed this that what atheists sometimes will do is try and use a word salad with new concepts and they just throw them out and they say, see, see what, please explain it.

Cause I don't know all their concepts and uh, sometimes I know what they do is they actually work on things, trying to develop arguments against God and they're always faulty. And the fault here is his beginning. The fault is that he doesn't justify doesn't have a way of justifying that his definition is true. Granted, he said he works with mine, but my definition that he wants to say is that God does know all things.

That's what we're working with. By definition he does. That's the Christian perspective. And so to him to say that within that knowledge set of all knowledge is something he doesn't know, which is what I threw out at him. He said, that's true. That doesn't make any sense. Okay.

So what we do at this point is we just move along. Let's get to Sean from Tennessee. Sean, welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, Matt slick. Um, doesn't see you a lot. I actually have a, uh, a spiritual question myself. I am a Trinitarian, no argument here. I have a, uh, I've been battling a little bit just my faith and nobody can really answer this question that I have.

Um, the question that I have is I've been looking to see if I can get a visual to match up what I have in my mind. Um, because I believe, I was, I believe in the Trinity. You can't read a Bible without becoming a Trinitarian.

Uh, I, as a Trinitarian, we are told, you know, it's three distinct beings, one God, and that's what I wholeheartedly believe. That's not it. That's not it. That's not the Trinity. Okay. So where am I wrong?

I'm sorry. Being by definition is its own entity. And so to say there's three, three beings is a problem because it's the same. Three beings is also one being because God, by definition is a being.

And so three beings would be one being, which is non sequitur. Excuse me. It doesn't work. Hold on. It'll be right back. Okay. I'll have to explain what the Trinity is.

Always have definitions. Okay. We'll be right back.

We have 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, everybody. Welcome back to the show. The last, uh, quarter hour. So let's get back on with Sean from Tennessee.

Sean, are you there? Okay. Yes, sir. All right. So, um, words are really important. Okay. As it was evidenced by the first caller or the previous caller. So we don't say that the Trinity is three beings in one God.

We, that's, that's very incorrect. We say three persons. Okay.

We have to define person here too. Okay. Are you there? Okay. Yes, sir.

Are you? Oh, okay. So have you heard of that, uh, definition, uh, three distinct simultaneous persons? I misspoke. I misspoke here.

I didn't misspoke. So like the thing, maybe I want to clarify what I'm actually looking for. So basically when I get to heaven, right? The Bible says that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father. It's just, I'm trying to try to like wrap my mind around what I'm going to see. Am I going to look forward and see two separate entities or is it going to be one God? I just can't wrap a visual through my mind.

Well, this is a tough one. Um, in Acts chapter seven, 55 through 60, Stephen had a vision and he saw the glory. He saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the glory of God. So the glory of God. Now the father dwells in unapproachable light. Unapproachable light who no man has seen or can see. First Timothy six, 16. So no one's going to ever going to be able to see the father.

That's just the way it is. We can see the glory of the father. So let's just assume just for illustration purposes that it would get to heaven. There's a, a humongously large, bright, glowing something out there. That's not God himself with the emanating glory and light of his being.

Okay. And then that would be what God would be. Now to say that Jesus is at the right hand doesn't mean that God, the father has a right hand or a left hand or feet.

It means it's a position of power because in the Kings of the days, those who are on the right hand of the King were the position of power. It's just a phrase. So when we, we get to see God, it will not be the father, but we will be able to see his representative, the, the exact representation of God, because that's who Jesus is and Hebrews one, three, he's the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature. This man, Jesus is that now he's got, that's because he's got two natures, divine nature and human nature. So therefore the radiance of the beauty of Christ's divine nature is expressed to the human. And we'll be able to see that.

That's about as good as we can get. Because we're finite. God's infinite. We're located. He's everywhere.

We are corporeal. He is not. So there's this disparity between him and us. We're not able to see him in his nature cause we don't have the ability to, so he has to come to our level.

Hence Jesus. Okay. I see. I see.

So basically you would say that we would physically see Christ? I believe so. Yes.

And he still has holes in his feet and his hands. Yeah. The build up. I mean, think about that. Yeah.

That's what, what the Bible does teach. And, um, could you imagine, I mean, just think about that. You're just, you know, you and I are up there and Hey, remember the phone call?

Oh, I remember you blah, blah, blah. We're talking. And, uh, and then there's some situation condition where it's time to go see him. You know, we stopped talking and we just walked towards him.

And there he is over there and it's our turn. Yeah. I've been, I've been listening to you, uh, to you and, uh, people like, uh, Avery, often got logic, uh, Sam, uh, Sam Shimon and you guys have just stay away from Sam Shimon brought me to a whole different level.

Yeah. Stay away from Sam. He's apostatized.

He's gone into, um, Eastern Orthodox here or Coptic Orthodoxy. And I know Sam. Okay.

We've done stuff together and I have a cell number. So I just, you can't trust him anymore. Okay.

He's gone over to apostasy. All right. Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate your time, my friend.

God bless you. And I appreciate you being able to kind of fill me in on that. I really, really appreciate that. Well, sure.

And car back, you know, call back sometime and ask more questions. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. Thanks a lot, brother. All right. All right. Let's get to, let's see, James from Lexington.

Hey, James, North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Thank you for taking my call.

Sure. Uh, I have a question, uh, you're breaking up a little bit. You're breaking up.

I'm having trouble following you, but you're breaking up. Could you go ahead? Try it again. Okay.

My question is Genesis chapter one. Okay. Okay. Okay. God created man on the sixth day. That's correct. I mean, I'm, I'm looking at it cause I got that moment.

We were breaking up. And God created God created God created man, male and female created them. And God blessed them.

And God said unto them to be fruitful and to multiply and replenish the earth. Well, my question is, is that where, when the male and female was to repunish the earth and fill the earth, was that one of the races and the, uh, everything, uh, had taken place. No, there was only Adam and Eve and the different skin colors were not yet manifested because it was just those two.

Okay. Now the genetic information for different skin colors is in our ancient parents, Adam and Eve. And so in different locations, there will be adaptations at certain people will do better in certain environments than others. And so, uh, their skin colors will, will, um, come out and, and they'll survive better in certain environments. So dark skin people do better in equatorial areas, light skinned better.

Uh, people do better in, uh, polar areas. And there's a reason for sunlight and some other stuff. Yeah, it's do right. Okay.

Yes. When the second one, and out of the dust of the earth and he breathed the breath of life between man became a living soul. He never said it in the first chapter. Okay. I'm not able to understand everything you're saying, but God breathed into Adam.

He became a living soul. I got that much. So what was the rest of it? Okay. Eve, he made male and female in the first chapter. Okay. And he, there's supposed to be earth.

Okay. But say anything about reading the breath of life and becoming a living soul. But over in the second chapter it says that he did and Eve wasn't even made until, uh, God said, it's not good for man to be alone.

He put him in the crib. Yeah. Genesis one and Genesis two are different means of accounting for the same thing. Genesis one is meant to be understood more in more detail and Genesis two, just Genesis two, excuse me, is like a recapitulation.

That's all it is. It's just saying different things. So I'm not sure, because I'm not sure I'm getting all the words you're saying.

I don't know if I'm answering you correctly because the connection is not very good. So that's all the Genesis two is, is it? It's a different way of looking at Genesis one. Okay. Okay.

It could be that, uh, Genesis two is like the genealogy maybe of chapter one. Something I, you know what I'm telling you, I'm having so much trouble understanding, I'm focusing, but I'm not able to really full, um, because if I miss one syllable, I might not understand a word and then I don't want to go off track and it's a little frustrating. I just think we have a bad connection. So, and I hate to say this to you cause you waited about a half hour. Would you be willing to call back tomorrow?

We have one call waiting call back tomorrow. Let's see if we can get this connection better. Okay. So I can really focus on what your issue is. All right. I apologize for the difficulty, but that's just what it is. Okay.

We'll call back tomorrow. Okay. Whoa. It really is hard to understand him. Sorry.

It's not his fault. His connection, Pat from Georgia. Welcome. You're on the air. Pat. Yeah. There you go. All right.

So what do you got, man? Oh, I was just wondering about the Trinity. Okay. What about it? Can you show me in the, in the scripture where God, God's trying when somebody tries to make the case that God's triune?

Right? Yes, I can. Where somebody preaches that where somebody preaches the, the triune God. Thank you. I don't understand. You asked me if I could, the answer is yes, I can. So what's your next question?

I was just waiting for you to show me. Oh, you want to know how the Trinity is arrived at biblically. Okay.

What I would suggest you do is go to my work. That's really that I was wondering if you told me where somebody preaches it, like preaches it, like you do pre preaches the Trinity. No, they don't preach the Trinity the way I do one God in three distinct simultaneous co-eternal persons. People don't say that in the Bible.

Okay. Why not? Why wouldn't they, why wouldn't they teach the Trinity in the Bible? If you teach the Trinity, okay, what I'm doing is teaching the summation of what the scriptures teach as a whole. The summation is not given in a single sentence in the Bible anywhere.

So when you're asking for a single sentence, where does someone teach that single sentence? It demonstrates to me, it shows me that you don't understand how the Trinity is arrived at. So it's arrived at by looking from Genesis to revelation and the varying things that are said about the father, son, holy spirit. And then when you look at the whole, then you see what's revealed by God about himself.

That's how we do that. So you would not expect then a single individual to teach what the whole of scripture T reveals about God because it's revealed to the whole Bible. Okay. So no, nobody ever tried to tell me if God's probably going to oppose this anywhere. Yeah.

Yes. Uh, I'm telling you, you said no one ever did. I can tell you the Trinity is true. It's the revelation of God throughout the entirety of the Bible.

If you go to my website, karm.org and look up Trinity table, you'll see there how the Trinity is arrived at by looking at scripture. It's not that hard. Well, Matt, wouldn't you think that somebody would try to teach this like, it's like the preach it in the, in the temple? I don't know. Not, not go to look, go to your website. Well, hold on. Oh, okay. Hold on. Hold on. We're almost out of time here.

It's like in a hurry. The Bible also says that Jesus has two natures is divine nature and a human nature. And we know that from scripture, John one, one and one 14, the word became flesh. The word was God became flesh. That's two natures, but nothing in the Bible says Jesus has one person with two natures because we don't find a statement like that, but you find what it's taught as summarized in the statement about who Christ is. You're asking the wrong question.

You should be asking, does the Bible teach the Trinity? That's what you should be asking. And the answer is yes. And we're out of time.

There's the music call back tomorrow. Okay. That we can talk to more about. Okay.

All right. Hey, there you go, folks. We were out of time with the Lord bless you and by his grace of back on the air tomorrow. And in a, let's see, one, two, two and a half hours from now, I'll be teaching a Bible study online and you can find that on the CARM website. Hey, let's go to carms.org forward slash Bible study. God bless. Another program powered by the truth network.