Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by Truth Network.

If you want, give me a call. I want to say thanks, everybody. Yesterday, we had a little fun. We were trying to get the simultaneous viewers over 100.

Eventually, we wanted to get over 1,000. So, I asked yesterday if people would go to Rumble and just, you know, go to the Matt Slick live radio show. And, man, it went up like 30 right away. So, hey, thank you for that. If you want to do that again today, that's great. All you're going to do is go to rumble.com forward slash MattSlick live. We're doing Rumble because YouTube is more and more penalizing conservatives. So, we are just trying to get ahead of things and get in there to, you know, to rumble and stuff like that. Yeah.

And, yeah, good stuff. So, there you go. I like that.

We've got three open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. That's right, Mr.

Kit. Let's get ready to rumble. All right. Let's get on the air with Juanita from Michigan. Hey, Juanita.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hi, there. Hi, there. Okay. So, I'm a non-Trinitarian, and I wanted to ask you how you approach these three Scriptures that I have.

Usually, debate about the Trinity centers around a Trinitarian presenting some kind of convoluted explanation or misinterpretations. Hold on, hold on. Please stop, stop, stop, stop. Okay? If you're going to just start in with insults right away, you know, they started listening to convolutedness and stupid arguments.

Don't do that. I'm going to ask you questions after you get done. I'll ask you some questions about the Trinity.

Let's see who's convoluted, okay? All right? All right. About when isn't it kind of even admitted that the Trinity doctrine is very confusing?

No. Oh, okay. I think in one of your papers you said that it was confusing, and so I apologize for confusing explanations, maybe. You know, convoluted isn't necessarily an accusation.

It just means it's complicated. Okay. I have three Scriptures. Let me just say them first. John 1-1, Genesis 1-3, and Psalms 33-6. And I was wondering how you put these together, because in order to refute the Trinity, it's necessary to present some kind of truth, you know, not just try to go over Trinitarian presentation. So, John 1-1, in the beginning, so we're talking about in the beginning, Genesis 1-3, in the beginning was the Word. And then Genesis 1-3, in the beginning, God said, let there be light. And then Psalms 33-6, by the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breast of its mouth. So, I think we have to start at the beginning with the physics of creation. The physics.

You know, this is where we need to start. Something actually physically happens in that nanosecond when God said, you know, so when something came from nothing. So we have to go back to the very beginning. So what's your... My question is how do you, what do you, what do you get out of those Scriptures?

Then let me explain. John 1-1 is a reflection out of Genesis 1-1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. John 1-1 is in the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word was God. And then God said, let there be light.

So we can see from there that God is speaking and said, let there be light. And if you go back to John 1, verse 2, he was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him. And in him was life and life was the light of men. So John is obviously referring to the created order out of Genesis chapter 1. Because he's used in the beginning.

That's the only other place it occurs like that. And he talks about the Word of God speaking and the Word and the light. He said, let there be light.

Jesus is the light of men. I mean, he's obviously relating Jesus to all this back there. And as far as Psalm 33, 6, by the word of the Lord, were the heavens made? Yeah, because God speaks and it occurs. And what it says here in John 1-1 is that the Word was God. Do you agree that the Word was God? We're concentrating right now on you said that God was speaking because it says God said, let there be light. You're moving on to another subject, which let's try to say concentrating here.

We are. You're the one who brought up John 1-1. I'm asking you about John 1-1. Do you believe that the Word was God? John 1-1 says in the beginning was the Word. That's what we're going to kind of concentrate on.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me now that the verse that you quote, you're going to not look at the whole thing, but only look at the first part. And that's how you're going to do your exegesis, right?

What we're concentrating on is in the beginning. You're not answering my questions. I asked you a specific question. You keep ignoring my questions in your arrogance. You continue to do this. You ignore what I say and you go on as though you just have it all right.

You can't even answer my difficult questions. I asked you very simply, what does the Bible say there? The Word was God.

It's a simple question. Do you agree that the Word was God, according to the Scriptures that you quoted? That Scripture says the Word was God. So do you agree? I didn't ask. I did not ask. I did not ask. I did not ask, does the Scripture say it? I said, do you agree that the Word was God?

That's what I asked. The last time I answered that question, you hung up on me. Can I answer it without... What's the answer?

Just, what's the answer? Do you agree that the Word was God? The Word was the Word of God.

Okay, look, this is for everybody to hear you do this, okay? I just asked you out of the verse that you brought up. I'm asking you out of what it is you brought up, where the last part of it is the Word was God. And then you said the Word was the Word of God.

That's not what the text says. So what I'm hearing you do, what everybody's hearing you do is alter the Word of God. You're changing it. If what you believe is consistent with the Word of God, you shouldn't have to change it, now should you? So do you agree that the Word was God? Matt, I was asking a question. It's my radio show.

What do you think about these reasons? I already gave you an explanation. I went to John 1, 1. I went to Genesis 1. I went to Genesis 1, 1 through 3. I went back to John 1, 1 through 3. Then went to verse 4 and referring to Jesus.

Then I went to Psalm 33, 6 and I talked about that. You asked how I should put it together. I did. Then I asked you a question and you ignored that.

So I'm going to ask you the same question. I didn't ignore it. I answered it. No, you did not. Please, I answered it.

Can you help me go through these three scriptures? No, we're not going to do it. May I ask you questions about them? Okay, look, look, look, look, look, look. This is not your radio. This is no good. No, this is not good.

You're right it's no good. Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye. See you later. Goodbye.

See you later Juanita. Notice what she does. Look, this is what happens. I've done this so many times with people.

They want to only ask questions a certain way and don't want to respond to questions asked about what they say. This is very common. I've experienced this so many times.

I've had so many conversations with people. When they have an agenda and they want the scriptures to fit their agenda, then what they do is ignore what the scriptures say or they will change what the scriptures say. And you guys heard that. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And I asked her, do you agree?

Notice I didn't say, what does it say? It is on purpose. Do you agree that the Word was God?

Now this is really critical. If she agrees, then we go on because she's agreeing with what it says. But notice what she did.

The Word was the Word of God. Notice what she did. She just changed it. So I asked if she agreed and in order to, so to speak, agree, she had to alter the Word. Now I come back and I respond.

Why would you have to alter the Word of God if you just believe what it says? She gets upset because I'm holding her feet to the fire. I know the game.

I know what they do. And she's, you know, she's a cultist. I'm sorry, but she is. And if she wants to have a serious conversation, she has to realize that if you come on my radio show, you have to, you know, I'm going to answer your questions. You've got to answer my questions back and forth.

You don't tell me that that's not what we're talking about and tell me how to work. Yes, it is what we're talking about because she brought up the verse. I'm allowed to ask questions about the verse she brought up. Do you see? It is not right. And she says, well, then go, then go. Fine, go. But no, she does not know what she's doing.

She does not know what she's doing, does not know how to put sentences together properly. Jim from Nashville, Tennessee, welcome. You are on the air. Hi, I was just wondering if God could be a man, could he also be a female too? Wait a minute, Jim. So could God be a man and God be a female too?

Yes, because if Jesus is God in flesh or whatever, even though he isn't, if he's God in flesh, could he also turn himself into a woman? Okay, hold on a sec, hold on a sec. Let me ask you, are you an atheist or what? I'm just curious, do I know where you're coming from, that's all?

Yes. Okay, you're an atheist. All right, I would suggest that you study Christian theology. I'll answer your question, but I suggest that you study it because a lot of times atheists don't understand. I already have. I read the Bible and everything and thankfully you send me into one.

Because a lot of times they don't understand what it is they're criticizing. So when you say God became a man, you talk about the person of Jesus, right? Yes.

Okay, do you understand or do you know that in Christianity, in Christian thought, Jesus has two simultaneous and distinct natures, a divine nature and a human nature. Are you familiar with that? That makes no sense? Yes. I didn't ask if it makes sense. I didn't ask if it makes no sense or not. I said are you familiar with that position?

Yes, the hypostatic union. Very good. Okay, so that's what our position is. Now if you want to say it doesn't make sense, then you can try and argue against it. But that's after we understand what the position is. So according to that doctrine, we don't say that God became a man as if you mean his nature changed because we don't say that. I'm making sure that you understand the nuances. We say that the divine nature became in union with the human nature and we call that person Jesus, okay?

Alright. Now could he have done it with a female? Yes, he could have done that as a female because the potentiality of that manifestation was certainly there.

There's no logical requirement that I'm aware of that would prevent that. But God chose to do it in the form of Jesus, the male, okay? According to scripture, that was written 40 years after. But alright, just answer this. Wait, hold on a sec, hold on a sec, hold on a sec, hold on a sec.

If you're going to throw something out there, don't expect to throw it out and even go on. So you said 40 years, really? Yes. 40 years after the case, what was written 40 years?

Did you tell people they have agendas? What was, excuse me, what was written 40 years afterwards? The earliest gospel.

The earliest gospel? Okay. Can you please hold, we've got a break. Can you please hold on? Yeah. I'm going to show you that that's not accurate, okay?

Of course. If you're open, if you're open to facts, hold on, okay, because we've got a break. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Let's see how Jim from Nashville, Tennessee does. He's an atheist.

Let's see how logical he is and it'll be interesting. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show. Jim, are you still there? All right.

I'm here. Okay. Really quickly. Look, if you start throwing things out as though it's just simply true, don't expect me to let it slide, okay? I do this with atheists a lot. They just throw something out.

I'm going to challenge them, okay? So you said the Gospels weren't written until 40 years afterwards. Well, just here's some information for you to ponder. The book of Acts does not contain the death of Peter and Paul, which historians agree was around 62 to 64 AD. It's a super significant event and also 70 AD is when Jerusalem was sacked and destroyed and that's not even in the book of Acts, which is a history of the early church. So Luke didn't include the death of Peter and Paul even though he wrote about them in there. So it's very significant.

Why didn't you include it? Because it was written before they died. So if they died around 62 to 64, we could just say, just for easy math, that the book of Acts was written around 60 AD. Well, if you read the first few verses of Acts and the first few verses of Luke, you'll find out that Luke wrote both and he wrote Luke years before he wrote the book of Acts. So, if Jesus died in 33 AD, the book of Acts is written around 60 AD and the Gospel of Luke was before that, let's just make it easy math and say 55 AD, that's 12 years difference.

Don't tell me it's 40. You want to know an interesting fact about the Bible? Sure. None of the books you read are in chronological order. No, Matthew wasn't the first written book and Revelation isn't the final written book either. I know that.

That's a big deal. Because the people who decided to put these books in had a committee and put them in. No, they didn't.

Just like, what is it? No, they didn't. Yes, they did. No, Jim, Jim.

You aren't reading the Bible that you read from them. Jim, Jim. What committee was it? Do you know? What committee? Several.

Which one? Constantine. Constantine.

Okay. When did Constantine live? When was the Council of Nicaea? 325 AD.

And then Constantinople was 450. Okay. Did, and so.

That's where the Trinity was invented. Hey guy, guy, guy, guy, guy, guy. Stop, stop, stop. Let me ask some questions here.

Are they the ones who decided what was in the Bible? Yes. Okay. You obviously have not studied.

Don't you find it kind of interesting? Okay, Jim. All right, I haven't studied. All right, Jim. You're right, you're right. I haven't studied. When I read stuff, it's gay.

Jim, Jim. Let me make a statement. Go ahead. You've not studied this issue. You haven't studied the canon existed before. You're right, I haven't. Okay.

Because I have an agenda just like every other caller. Okay, so you admit you haven't studied that particular thing. Okay, so about male. So what is this?

Is it a gender issue? Is that it or what? No, it's a, you won't let me finish anything and then you just tell me something else. Don't throw, don't throw something out if you want to just take a shot at me. Or Christianity, don't expect it to be challenged. Like you did with the Gospel. Christianity is a false religion. It's not even real. Okay, why is it not real? And I can prove it to you.

Okay, prove it to me. Because there's no Christ in Christianity. Read, just read this verse. Mark 12, 29. Matthew 22, 37. Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Don't go at 80 miles an hour, dude. Look, you say read this and then you go 15. Mark what? Mark 12, 29. Okay, Mark 12, 29. The hero is or the Lord of God is one.

Yes. And what about it? A Jew says to him, he says to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy understanding and the second is to love thy neighbor as thyself.

And he says, do this and you will live. And it's more important than all sacrifices. Okay, so what's your point? That's a Jewish belief. That's not a Christian belief. Dude. If ever there were a place to have said, God is a trinity. Jim.

Yes. Christianity came out of Judaism. It's heavily influenced by Judaism. No, it's not. The trinity and Judaism are not the same. Hold on, hold on, hold on. You're not focusing.

You're just jumping all over the place. Christianity is heavily influenced by Judaism. You can read the book of Hebrews as an example. There's all kinds of Old Testament. Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

Can you just focus? The book of Hebrews, which is in the New Testament canon, has all kinds of Jewish stuff in it. I'm just trying to show you that it's heavily influenced by Judaism. To say it has nothing to do with is simply not accurate. Okay? Okay. So. Alright.

What else? You said you were going to prove Christianity wasn't true. What's your proof?

Um, let's see here. Do you read the Bible and walk away knowing how the trinity works? How the trinity works? You mean how the ontological... Yeah, do you read God's word? Because you call it God's word. Hold on, you ask me.

You call it God's word? Can you... Can you... Jim, if you ask me a question, do you want me to answer? Or do you just want to ask a bunch of questions and then hang up?

I don't know. No, um, just keep repeating yourself. No, I'm not. Um, I'm asking you if you want me to actually answer the questions you throw out at me. It's what I do for a living. Okay?

I answer these questions. But apparently you can't give up the right one. Well, I don't know what the right one is according to your thought. But if you, you said you were going to prove Christianity was false, I'm asking you to do that. How do you prove Christianity is false?

What's the criteria? Alright, uh, did Jesus Christ write the Bible? No, not by his own... Okay, there you go. Wait a second, wait a second, wait a second. I was saying something not by his own physical fingers. No, but by the inspiration.

Did you find that suspicious? Can you let me finish? Guy, do you want answers? Come on. Um, from you, I want the right one. I don't want answers.

I want the right one. Okay, Jim, you need to let me answer, okay? Alright? Yeah. Not by his physical fingers, but in the context of by him as God inspiring, then we can say, well, yeah.

So it depends on which way you want to look. Okay? There you go.

Alright? Well, God doesn't inspire dishonesty. He doesn't? So are you saying Jesus was dishonest? Uh, if he existed, no. But the people who wrote the Bible, yeah. Oh, the people of the Bible were dishonest. Okay. So what evidence is there that you have of their dishonesty? Um, John 1, 1, you just said that it says that Jesus is God in flesh.

Here's a question to think about. No, I didn't say that. Was that written by Jesus?

That was copied. Okay, hold on. I didn't say that, first of all. I didn't say that John 1, 1 says that Jesus was God in flesh. That's not what John 1, 1 says.

Okay. In the beginning of the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word dwelt among us. That's verse 14. That's verse 14.

So you referenced John 1, 1. Okay. So, okay. So you mean John 1, 1 and verse 14. Okay.

Go ahead. And also the begotten Son of God is alive. It is? How's it alive? That's a good question.

How's it alive? Um, do you, all right, I'll tell it to you exactly. It is an evolved doctrine and begotten means to procreate as the Father implies the cardinal element of sex. Oh, it does?

Oh, it does? Then why is it that, then why is it that the firstborn, which is related to the only begotten, is a transferable title, and only begotten is also a play on words in the Greek? The word menagenies. Can I explain to you something? It's menagenies and it's for other people in Acts and also in Luke. Okay.

And then, uh, it's three against one. Jim. Jim. Yeah. So menagenies comes from two words, mano and ganao.

Okay. And there's a pun a lot, a lot of you don't know. The word for unique is menagenies. But when you have two words, only and begotten, and the first word has a, ends with a vowel and the second word begins with a vowel, that's called a diphthong.

When the diphthong vowels come together, there's rules of what vowel they change into and that becomes the same spelling as the word unique. So the only begotten is a pun also in Greek to play on words, on the issue of being unique as well. And why? Well, you need to be learning with light. Hold on. Come on. Hey, Jim. Jim. Jim.

We got a break. Jim. Jim, calm down.

Okay. I had to put him on hold. We'll be right back, folks. If he's still there after these messages, please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. I hope he's still there. Jim, are you still there? Are you still there, Jim? I'm hoping he's still there.

I enjoy talking to atheists. I really do. Maybe he's had enough. I don't know. You know? Oh, man. Tell you what, Jim. If you're still there, I'm not hearing you. I hope you call back.

I'd love to talk to you some more. Let's get on the air here with Rick from High Point. Oh, man.

I was enjoying that so much. Rick, welcome. You're on the air.

Rick. Oh, maybe we're having a problem with the lines. Wouldn't that be something? Let's see.

We put him on hold. Let's get over here to Elijah from Pennsylvania. Elijah, welcome. You're on the air. Oh.

Hey, Matt. Can you hear me fine? Yeah. Now I can. Yeah. Okay. Mm-hmm. All right. Yeah. Sure. So I had a question, but I would like to put that on hold, and I would like to make a comment about the atheist comment.

Sure. He said that Judaism and Christianity are not the same or not influenced, and he said that eternity is not, I think, that didn't come from Judaism. But he hasn't done his homework, because Dr. Michael Heiser, who sadly passed away a few months ago, he pointed out this Jewish scholar who proved that the ancient Jews believed in what was called the two powers in heaven, because of some scriptures in the Old Testament, like Genesis 19, 24, and a few others.

And the Jews in the first century, they eventually got away from the multiple persons in the Godhead theology, because they wanted to distance themselves from the Christians. And yeah, so that belief just went away. Yeah. And also... Well, do you have a question?

Do you have a question? Just curious. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

My question was going to come after these statements. But yeah, and also, what's his name? Anthony Rogers was debating Dr. Shabir Ali, and he brought up that in the Jewish Targums that the Jews used to believe in the Father, the angel of his presence, the Holy Spirit. So you know, they did believe in three persons, the Godhead. Yes. I'm aware that the Jews did have, a lot of them had a plurality interpretation of God. Yep.

Because of the Old Testament. Yep. Absolutely. Yep. Yeah. Okay. So what do you got, man?

What's up? Yeah. My question would be, did you see Donnie's recent video from the Center for Truth YouTube channel? He did a recent video where the title of the video was, Destroying All Millennialism. I didn't watch it, but... Donnie did destroy all millennialism.

Well, I know Donnie. He's a good guy. Okay. Well, if he did, then it's destroyed. I guess if he destroyed it, it's destroyed.

What are you going to do? Would you be interested in having a discussion with him on all millennialism versus his view? Yeah, that'd be fine.

I'd be keen I could have it this good, as long as it was friendly, because he's a good guy. And what I like to say about this stuff is, here's why I believe what I believe. I could be wrong, but this is why I believe what I believe. And I think I have some good arguments against the premillennial view. I think I do.

But you never know. We all just got to check these things out. Okay. Yep. Okay. Well, yeah, I've got some arguments I think are pretty solid and not had anybody refute them yet.

So, you know, we'll see. Okay. Maybe we can see if I can have a just nice friendly discussion. All right. Okay. Any other question or anything? Yeah, I'm trying to, I'm trying to, um, let's see, um, I guess I'll go with, uh, door number three. Uh huh.

Um, uh, uh, uh, I guess, I guess, uh, uh, uh, I'll give you a question about the Holy Spirit. So, okay. Um, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so, uh, I was, I was thinking about, you know, since you said that you might, you know, do a, uh, you know, another discussion with Sean Griffin on, on a, on a, yeah, I think he's asking a bunch of questions. Yeah.

That'd be interesting. But go ahead. Yeah. Uh huh. Um, so, uh, how come, I know, I know, I know that, uh, uh, the scriptures teach that, uh, all, all authority has been, all authority and all judgment has been given to the son.

Yeah. So, um, you know, revelation, we see that both the father and the son both have thrones, but, but, but, but, uh, why do you think that we don't see the Holy Spirit having a throne in revelation? Because the ministry of the Holy Spirit is a bare witness of Christ. And since the God, the father gave all authority to the son, uh, then the authority that is exercised must be exercised, so to speak, as we would, we would imply, or it would whole thing would apply from a position of authority that's symbolized by a throne. The Holy Spirit is not the one to whom the authority was given.

The Holy Spirit's ministry and work is to bear witness of the son and that, and the truth. And that's John 14, 26, John 15, 26. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Simple. Good stuff.

Good question too. All right. All right. Yeah. Yeah. Cause I know, I know like, like, like oneness and like, like Unitarian, they're like, they're like try to say, well, well since we don't see the Holy Spirit having a throne, then that must mean that either, you know, the Holy Spirit is the same person as the father of the son or that, or that must mean that, you know, the Holy Spirit is, you know, you know, you know, power of God or something like that. Yeah.

Yeah. I do a lot of debates, impromptu discussions, I should say, with people who are Unitarian and oneness. And very often, both sides do not understand our position. Very often.

Sometimes they do. I will grant. And then they can argue more competently, but still they have problems and I know how to show those problems. Okay. But yeah. All right. Okay. All right. Yeah. Yep.

Yep. All right, man. Well, God bless. All right. Take care, man. Okay, man. God bless.

All right. Hey, if you want to give me a call, three open lines. I'm John from Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt.

Regarding the one-minute videos. Uh-huh. I'm way behind.

I'm still about two weeks behind. I'm near sessions for six o'clock. But anyway. As an alternate media, I've worked with the GPC chat for some stuff that I had to do for work and I'd like to get ahold of you to show you that I think it might be a little bit easier to do and cheaper, like about a dollar a minute on the output. And I'd like to show you my presentation that I did for work as you get an example.

How do we set up a Zoom to get that scheduled up? It's easy. Let me ask you.

Are you a Christian? Oh, yeah. Yeah. We talk all the time. Okay.

I talk to so many people. Sorry, man. I just, I do. Yeah. Yeah.

No problem. Oh, okay. You're the Sergeant. Oh, you're Sergeant?

No, you are. Oh, I am. Oh, because there's a guy named Sergeant.

Is it Major Sergeant way back then? Yeah. No, no, no. Okay. Well, I'll tell you what.

All you got to do is just email me at info at karm.org. Just, you know, hey, Zoom meeting with Matt regarding, I think he said chat GPT, right? Yeah. Well, no, they use that engine to move the mouth.

It's an animation type thing, but it's really cool. We definitely talk. Yeah. Yeah.

So is that something we can, I mean, in a short time? Oh, yeah. Well, you know, I'll be done in 20 minutes. I got a guy coming over an hour after that. We got something to do. And so I have an hour in between, which is, I usually check on my wife, feed, feed the cats associated.

It's what I do. I can feed the cats at this time and then maybe we can check it out or if not today then tomorrow. All right. Cause tomorrow is a good, so you'll just send it to info.com and a team's meeting info at carm.org, carm.org. Okay. And yeah, we can do it either at Zoom or we can do teams or whatever you want to do. It'd be fine.

I'd like to see it. And I've been studying a lot of AI stuff, so I'm curious to see what you got. Yeah. It is like, it's, it's so cool at least using it in the right way.

Um, some of the things I think I talked to you about a month ago about it as well. When you, when you're using it, uh, this presentation I had to do, I only had a five minute window and uh, the first one was just to try and get it. Then I came out with what I needed to do was seven and a half minutes. So, okay, let's speed up the video by 20%. That got me down to about six minutes.

So I was able to use the chat program to go in, take the paragraph, say either you could make it funny or make it more presentationable, but I needed to shorten it down. We got a break. We got a break. Hold on. Okay.

I got to go anyway. We'll talk tomorrow. Okay. Sounds good, buddy. Talk to you later. God bless. All right. You too.

All right. Hey, we have three open lines. 877-207-2276.

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. Let's get on the air with Jason from Charlotte, North Carolina. Jason, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey, thanks. Appreciate you taking the call. Sure. So what do you got? So first of all, I am a believer and not looking to argue with you, just wondering what your points of view are on a particular... Well, you get that a lot and you got a lot of patience, so I'm just kind of throwing that out there.

Thanks. But I was wondering what your thoughts are on a particular subject. It's got to do with Matthew 24, and I know that chapter in particular, Daniel and Revelation, people always associate with the end times. And I've kind of always just took what people say at face value.

And so, but during COVID, I started doing just a little more of my own studies and research just because like everybody was saying, you know, this is going to be the end of the world or this is the mark of the beast and all this stuff with the vaccines and stuff. So anyway, my question is Matthew 24. So Jesus takes them up to the top of the Mount of Olives and he points out the temple to them and he says, do you see the temple?

Not one stone will be left upon another. And then they asked him, based on that one statement, two separate and distinct questions. They said, what will be the sign of this?

And then they said, and what will be the sign of your, it's a Greek word called parousia, which I think means establishing the kingdom or setting up the kingdom. So the way I've always heard it, preached is always like one in the same. People just throw it all out there and say, okay, it's all for end time stuff, just kind of like they do with Daniel and revelation. And they, and they just, it's kind of scary, some of the stuff, but from, from, from, um, what I've gathered and some stuff I've looked up and, um, I found this other guy who was in the church in Australia and he's got hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube.

He's, he's very calm, cool and collective. He's not dogmatic, but he's big on history and he's big on saying we have to let the Bible interpret the Bible and not come up with the theory based on a book or whatever. But he, he's saying, and I've researched the history on it is, and stuff is that in the language of the first 35 verses, you can tell Jesus is answering the first question because he says, you, you, you, when you see this and he tells them there's something they can do about it, flee, get out of Jerusalem. He's being prophetic. He's saying it's going to happen in your generation. Um, these are the signs leading up to it, you know, and there were the earthquakes and false teachers. He, he talks about how Josephus actually recorded these events that they did actually happen. But then when he gets diverse, I think it's 35 or 36 there's a term used that's called the Perry day. And it's the same phrase that Paul uses like now concerning this other matter.

And soon as he uses that term, um, now concerning this other question, the Perry day, um, it's late shift, it's just so you know, it's day, it's day, it's day Perry, not Perry day in Greek. Okay, go ahead. Okay. I'm sorry. So, but anyway, um, the first question, the question he's answering is it's when you see this, you, you can do something about it.

Um, you can know that it's at the door, it's, it's right there. Get out of Jerusalem. It's going to happen in your generation. Then he shifts and he says, um, he gives parables of complacency, um, but he says nobody knows the time. Not, not even the son, only the father. He says it's like a thief in the night, a thief never gives a warning of when he's gonna rob a house. He, he, he refers to as life as normal as far as the second event. Um, first event being the, when, when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD and that great tribulation upon the church through Nero. Um, but then the second question, a long time, a master going away, he gives a parable of the talents that has to do with complacency, the virgins without oil has to do with complacency, the harvest, the master coming to settle accounts that has to do with complacency.

But he says his life is normal, eating and drinking and giving and marriage. Um, no man knows, not even the son, only the father, um, they, them, um, that kind of deal. So anyway, I'm just kind of curious of where you're at on that and um, based on, I agree with what you're saying, I, I, I like that the division at verse 36, um, it makes sense, but at that day nor the hour, no one knows.

Now I might want to add that in that issue, it doesn't necessitate that the son does not know, but that it's, uh, some commentators believe it relates to the wedding feast, idiomatic expression that no one knows the day nor the hour by the father alone when the bride will be retrieved and things like that. But there's a, that's another discussion. But yeah, I am a, uh, excuse me, I had to cough, uh, yeah, I agree because there are two things are in verse three, uh, when will these things happen and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age because the coming is the end of the age. And I don't know if this guy you're following or listen to, um, uh, uses a two age model, but I do, uh, Jesus teaches this age and age to come, Paul does too, the two age model. So uh, yeah, it sounds good. And I really liked the, uh, what you brought up there, um, about the complacency because I hadn't really thought about it that way, but you're right.

And if you got it from him, he's right. That's exactly what the issue is there. The church is becoming complacent and that's obvious. I mean, that's all around us. And uh, also I'd like to add that two men in the field, one is taken, one is left.

You know, a lot of people say that's the rapture and it's not, it's the wicked who were taken. I don't know if you know that. I agree. Okay. I agree with that. And so it, this looks like it happens at the end of everything, but go ahead. No, I was just going to say to your point, I agree with that too. Jesus said, um, sorry, I don't even have my speaker.

My radio is not even on anymore. I don't know where the echo is coming from, but anyway, um, yeah, that's another thing is that Jesus said as it was in the days of Noah, as it was in the days of Lot, the wicked were always taken out of the way. The wicked never inherit the earth. The meek and the righteous always inherit the earth. But yeah, go ahead.

I'm sorry. No, you're right. In fact, if you cross reference it to Matthew 13 in the parable of the wheat and the tares and he interprets it, but he says, first gather the tares, let the wheat, uh, you know, gather them later. But the first ones gathered are the wicked to be destroyed, which is really interesting. I think eschatologically that tells us something that I need to look into further, but the kingdom of God is now and here and we are in his kingdom because the wicked are going to be taken out of his kingdom because that's what Jesus says.

And if that's the case, then we Christians need to understand that it's the kingdom of our Lord is in place, but because of our apathy, this is why the enemy appears to be in control. Yeah, exactly. Yep. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. It sounds good, good stuff.

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it. And, uh, you might want to go check out an article I've got, uh, I did a pretty heavy analysis, uh, on, uh, examining this age and the age to come in support of all millennialism. And if you're not all male, that's fine, but there's just information in there that, uh, can be put together in a very interesting way that I think is relevant to the issue as well and could give some further insights, you know, so just look at some of the stuff you shared.

What does that mean? It's on my website, CARM.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, CARM.org, just to search for an examination of this age and the age to come. And it's an eschatological position that, uh, I've just not heard anybody speak on except for, um, uh, what's his name, oh, I hate that one, I forget his name, but I, we used to talk 30 years ago, 40 years ago, uh, oh, I hate that one.

Anyway. So, uh, he's the only other person I've known who's ever brought this up and he's the guy who introduced it to me, uh, this age and the age to come concept and, um, Kim Riddlebarger, that was his name. Oh, it took me a while. And so ever since then, when I saw that and he introduced it to me, the concept, I've seen it in scripture and I've expanded and looked through it and I'm convinced that that is the, it's my opinion, I'm convinced it's the proper eschatological position to hold. How about that? I'll check it out.

It sounds like it's familiar. The guy I'm talking about, his name is John Ali. If you go to YouTube and type in John Ali, the name of his ministry is Peace TV, or you go to YouTube and type in Peace TV and he has an eschatology series. He ties in the book of Daniel, Matthew 24 and Revelation, all with history. Um, he talks about how Daniel prophesied the timing on Jesus's appearance with the 70 heptads and how he's big on the Bible, must interpret the Bible.

And we look at all through the Bible, what clouds of judgment means and how Jesus prophesied the judgment coming to Jerusalem and how John the Baptist talked about it, Daniel talked about it, and then how it happened within the generation, um, after Jesus ascended in the book of Revelation, he talks about how that was the most read book because the Bible hadn't been canonized and that the Lord gave that to the church to prepare them for the persecution of, uh, through Nero, um, and he definitely believed in the physical return of Christ. Okay, let me ask you some questions. Is this guy a full preterist? I think he, um, goes along with, um, what does he call it? A millenia with, with he, he defines it a millennium as something else.

Okay. So he believes in the millennium, but the word millennium isn't in the Bible, but he believes in, um, that we're kind of in it right now as far as the time where the open and people are coming to salvation and that kind of stuff. Right. So there's preterism and then there's something called preterism. Full preterism says that everything was done by the, by 70 AD and that's just called full preterism.

Partial preterism says, well, not all of it was done back then and there's more to come. That kind of a thing. Yeah. So yeah, check out the, uh, he is, and he is to come, you know, the book of Revelation, but yeah, it's good to take in history and context.

Absolutely. So we don't get, you know, we don't get, um, sensationalism, you know, creeps in and it's like he said that dude printed our books at 80 and 88 reasons why Jesus come back in 88 and sold millions of copies. It didn't happen.

Then he revised it in 89. It just gives a reproach to the church. So we always want to be ready. Christ could come back anytime, but it could, it could be a long time, but we've got to look at history and not scare people, um, with things that might not, that may have already happened as far as in Matthew 24. I agree. I totally agree with you. Awesome.

There's a lot more to be done before he comes back. Absolutely. Good stuff, man. God bless. All right. Thank you. All right. Interesting stuff. I like that. Let's get to Chris is, uh, the next longest waiting for New Jersey. Sorry. We only have about a minute, two minutes left. Sorry about that. What do you got, man?

Hey, how are you? So I heard it mentioned before, um, Dr. Michael Heiser and um, I've been hearing a lot of him recently and looking into a lot of what he was teaching about Psalm 82 and stuff like that. Um, what are some of your thoughts on his position about, um, the possibility of there being like another group of angelic beings below him in Psalm 82? Yeah, it's a, I reject it. Uh, it's caused, his interpretations have caused a lot of problems, particularly out of Psalm 82 and what Psalm 82 is, is an imprecatory Psalm against the wicked judges of Israel.

And it is said of them that they are like wicked, uh, you know, they're, they're, they're in bad shape. But what it says here is God takes a stand in his own congregation, in his own, um, uh, you know, assembly. And so, uh, so some people would say, well, that means there's an assembly of lesser gods or greater angels or whatever, and that that's part of the council and the assembly that God works within. And I would say no, because God is absolutely sovereign and he doesn't need a council.

Anything exists outside of himself through which he would then take counsel. It's impossible. You understand? Okay.

That makes a lot of sense. Because think about it in the eternal decree, quickly, really fast here. God's eternal, eternal Trinitarian, and he's known all things actual as potential from forever ago. So there is no need or possibility of anything outside of himself by which he would then gain any more knowledge or consideration of decisions.

He would deny his ubiquity, his aseity and his, um, omniscience. Okay. All right, man. Sounds good.

Thank you so much. All right. God bless, buddy. Hey, sorry, John from Richmond, Virginia on pre and post-trib rapture callback Monday. Let's talk about that.

It's really good stuff. We need to talk about it. Sorry. We just ran out of time. May the Lord bless you all. Have a great weekend everybody. And by his grace, we're back on the air on Monday. We'll talk to you then. See you. Bye. Another program powered by the truth network.