Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. All you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Juanita, welcome, you're on the air.

Hi Matt, thank you. We were talking about John 14 14 last time, and it was, if you shall ask me anything in my name, we were talking about who to pray to. And so the Greek shows a word for me there, but it wasn't transcribed. I use the King James version. And I thought it was a really curious thing, so I kind of delved into a little bit, and I was wondering, in your research, I couldn't find anything about, I don't know if it would be called the controversy or whatever, about this particular scripture.

Is there any background that you know of that you can share with me on it? Yes, the word me is not found in some of the ancient manuscripts. P75, for example, it does have it. P75 was roughly around 200-225 AD when it was written.

P66 doesn't have it, and it's from 150-250 AD. And so the question is, which is the right one? And most of the translators now, most of the modern Bibles, what they do, they have the privilege of being able to use more ancient manuscripts than the King James, for example. And so they have the word me in it, because that's what one of the most ancient manuscripts has. Okay, so I checked my 4D translations, I had 40 translations, and of them, nearly half of them didn't include the me.

There were 25 that did, well not half, I guess, 25 that did, and 15 that didn't. So it was, you know, a considerable amount, enough that it kind of gave me pause a little bit, you know, that there were so many translations that didn't include the word me. So I thought it was just a curious thing to me. There are other, and everything surrounds the Trinity doctrine, any of the perversions in Scripture are usually...

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Perversions of Scripture, you think that the Trinity's a perversion? I said perversions of Scripture. Oh, of Scripture.

And usually it's around... What is a perversion of Scripture, then? When, well, some of the translations are questionable. Like, what translation do you use, normally? NESB 95. NESB? New American Standard Bible, 1995.

NESB, okay. Like, with your translation, like, let's say 1st John 3 16, what does it say? 1st John 3 16, it says, yeah, we know love by this, that he laid his life down for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Okay, that's good. I'd have to check all the other, some of the translations say that God laid down his life for us, and you have to almost go through and, you know, kind of see.

How about Jude 4? No, our only Lord and Savior Jesus, for certain persons have crept in. Okay, some of them say our only Lord God and Savior Jesus. Our only Master and Lord Jesus, right.

Yeah, yeah. So that, so the translation, your translation is pretty good, it doesn't pick up some of the, and I guess that's what I'm saying, that there are some translations that try to promote, you know, they're misleading and deceptive because they insert things that really aren't there. Well, I don't know, see, you've got to understand something, a codex is a page like we have in a book, okay, it's, you know, 669.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that one. A codex, a codex is a page like we have in a book. So what, a lot of people don't realize this, but when they would write copies, they would copy down a codex, what they were doing, they could copy down, you know, a manuscript, is letters in Greek and are also numbers, so whenever you write a letter you're also writing a number.

We have A, B, C, 1, 2, 3, they just have alpha, beta, gamma, and that's 1, 2, 3, the same letters. So what they would do is add up the letters, and they would use it as a check system. Okay, so the paper would be expensive, the scholar, not a scholar, but the scribe did a hire or whatever it was, they might be working by candlelight in a cave, whatever, and sometimes people just got tired, and sometimes when they would go from one line to another line they might do a copy of the word hot, like the word the, the end of one line to the beginning of another. Well that's a variant, okay, or they might make a notion, not a notion, a note in a margin. Let's just say that one of the manuscripts that they copy, somebody made a mistake, and they just forgot the word ha, which is the, let's just say there's only one letter, and let's just say they do that, oh man, you know, and so what they did was they put a ha in the in the margin. Well that manuscript becomes a variant, and then you might get that manuscript dug up later on, and they say manuscript number, whatever it is, that assigned value has a variant ha in the margin.

And so it's this kind of thing. Well generally the rule is the older the manuscript, the more reliable. So the newer the manuscript, the more opportunity they have for variants to creep in, and for marginal notes to be considered as an addition. So some think the ending of Mark is like that, which I believe the ending of Mark, I don't trust it, and I've got linguistic reasons for that, and historical reasons. The Comogenium, which is 1 John 5.7, which, to be the bare witness, well that's not in the oldest manuscripts, though I've heard recently there's an older manuscript that it seems to be found in, but I haven't checked it out, so I don't use it. And the woman caught in adultery is in John 8 is in different places.

These are the three main issues in the texts. So when we go to the manuscripts, the older ones, so King James for example was translated with fifth, sixth, seventh century documents. Well since the 1600s archaeologists have discovered much older documents from 300s and the 200s.

Well those are going to be the ones that generally are going to have more value and more weight. And so the scholars, what they do is they get together and say this looks like an ancient, more ancient reading, they can do it by, there's a lot of ways they can verify the ancientness, I won't get into that, but they can do that. And so then the more modern translations use older manuscripts.

That's why it's generally better to use one. When we go all the way back to even Jesus' time and the most profound, the word, warning he had against the scribes. Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees. Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees.

I mean, I think even back there in Jesus' time, the scribes were coming under some real heavy condemnation, you know, so we do have to be really careful. But the only thing, the only discrepancies and the only confusion has always been around the Trinity doctrine, and this is kind of the thing that kind of gives me pause, you know. It's not accurate. Okay. Sorry, the woman caught in adultery falsifies what you just said, it's just basically around the Trinity. No, it's not. That that pericope is in different manuscript places.

Also the ending of Mark, there's three different endings for Mark. Right. Getting back to 1414, excuse me, because I've only got a minute and I'll have to, you have the outside callers that are waiting. So getting back to John 1414, so we have quite a bit of, you know, is the me supposed to be in there or not when we pray? Do we really pray to Jesus or not? And so we have all these, we have all the other scriptures when you pray, say, our Father, which are our Father, whichever you ask in my name, my name, and so this seems to be the only one, and it's a very questionable scripture that we pray to Jesus. Now let's look at that for a second.

Let me ask you something about it. Let's just say the word me isn't in there originally, let's just say that's a possibility, okay? Then why does Jesus say, I will do it? I know, and the whole scripture, I think, is really under scrutiny because Jesus says in John, several times, whatever you ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you. Whatsoever, that's John 15, John says, whatsoever you ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you. So we've got a little bit of confusion here. No, not if you're Trinitarian, then you don't have any confusion.

Right, right. If you are a non Trinitarian, you'll have confusion, but if Jesus is divine, then he can do that. He can say, I'll do it, and it would be correct.

Well, there wouldn't be any problem at all, would there? No, I just think for me, I need to question mark John 14, 14, and go with Luke 11, 12, Matthew 6, John 15, and John 16. Listen, you need to be careful.

Wait, wait, wait. Thank you very much, Matt. So what you're gonna do is, because you have a presupposition, you're gonna submit the scriptures to your presupposition. Tell you what, move along to John 14, 23, and there's another issue there, because this is what Jesus says, if anyone loves me, he'll come, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. Now, Jesus is saying he will live in the believer just as the Father does. How does Jesus do that?

Because through him we're one with God. No, no, Jesus is saying he's going to live in us. In the Garden of, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said, he prayed to the Father, and he said, you and me, Father, and I and them, that we all may be one. Now, here's the thing about interpretation.

This is what you do, and a lot of people do who, I gotta say this, are false teachers, because what they'll do, instead of looking at the text I raise, they immediately go someplace else, immediately, without looking what the text says. And the reason they do that is because they have an agenda, and they have to find a verse that suits them, so that the verse that I raise isn't a challenge, so they interpret in light of something else. But what Jesus says here is, we will come and make our abode with him. Jesus says, the Father and myself, we will come and live in you. How is that possible with Jesus? So Jesus is living in you? He said, if you don't, he said, if I don't go away, the Holy Spirit won't come. I got you, Matthew, yeah, I got you, but I'm looking at John 14 23. The Holy Spirit is in me. You're not listening. The Holy Spirit is in me. We're just gonna go around, and we're gonna go around in circles. John, but you don't, hold on, Juanita, Juanita. What? The text, if you want to discuss something like this with me in a formal discussion, I will camp out on this all night, and say, look at the one verse, and tell you, cry uncle, because he says, he will live in you.

How is that possible, from your perspective? That's the question. Hey, we've got a break. You can either hang on or hang up, and we'll get to you later, okay?

Hey folks, there's a break. May the Lord bless you. I'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. Hope you're enjoying the show.

Let's see if Juanita's still on the air. Are you still there? I am. Okay.

We had a break there, sorry about that. Okay. So, are you gonna deal with John 14-23, what it actually says? If you want to repeat the question, you were asking me, how would Jesus repeat the question?

Sure. Jesus says, he and the Father will make their abode in the believer. So we know that the Father, we know the Father himself indwells us, and yet Jesus says he also will indwell us. How does Jesus himself, because he relates it equally with the Father, how does he indwell us?

How is he able to do that? Well, that's like trying, I have to go to another scripture to explain it, and you want me to explain how God created the earth? I mean, like, I have to go to another scripture, how Jesus indwells us, he says in the Garden of Gethsemane, he says that, he says, as you, Father, are in me, and I in them. So through Jesus Christ, we are one with God. So God indwells us through Jesus Christ.

It doesn't say that. Here's the thing, literally, I have a screen, I have something open, and I'm working on a seminar that I'll be developing on apologetics and how to do it. And one of the categories I'll be teaching on is egetical mistakes. And literally, I just put what you said in. See, you submit the text to another verse without looking at the context verse. That's the first thing.

And then you get it to say the opposite of what it actually is saying. So this is what you're doing. Would you put in about the worship? Because we kind of cleared that up in one of our conversations, how the word is translated, worship. Yes, but we're not talking about that. No, no, but if you're going to put notes in your thing.

And also another one that you could put in. No, no, no, no, no, you don't understand. Hold on, hold on. These are exegetical fallacies. I'm just saying, you're helping me write them because you do them.

That's all I'm saying. And you give red herrings, like you just give a red herring. And so I put in the word red herring just now. Can I give you another one? Sure, another mistake you make.

Go ahead. Okay. Scripture never says that the worlds were created by Jesus. The Greek word is through, die.

You'll never find, so put that one down for sure because that's a fallacy. The worlds were created through, not by. Okay, so through. Then why does it say that God did it alone by himself in Isaiah 44-24? He did, through his word. It doesn't say that. You keep changing the text.

It does. Thus says Jehovah, your redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, Jehovah, am the maker of all things, tricking out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone. Absolutely.

So, was there anybody with him? There's no, and that depends on what you think the word says. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning, God said. See, here's a good example, is you ignore what I say. So it was God by himself.

You ignore? It was God by, there is no word. What do you think the word was before our names? Hold on, hold on, hold on. You brought on.

Was it a man up there? Yeah, hold on. You're making mistakes. You're continuing to do it.

I am not. And I'm writing down what you're doing because it's going to help me as an example. And not just you, but so many other people make these mistakes. So you said, you said, you brought it up. You said it never says Jesus made anything. That's what you said.

No, no, no, no, no. You said. I said, what I said was, it never says that the worlds were created by. Okay, I got you. The worlds were created through.

Got you, through him. So if it was. Jesus didn't exist until he was born of Mary.

Juanita, Juanita, Juanita. If it was done through Jesus, then why does God say he did it alone? Wasn't done, Jesus didn't exist, Matt, until he was born of Mary. The preexistence was the word.

Yes, okay, I got you. Was the word alive that it have self-awareness? The word was the word of God.

You're not answering me. Did the word have self-awareness? I don't know what the word was before the incarnation. And neither do you. Juanita, Juanita, if you don't know what it is, don't say what it is and how things are related.

All I know is what the Bible says. And the Bible says it was the word of God. Juanita, you're not making any sense. I just tried to bring a point. I'm making absolute sense. Juanita, if you don't know what something is, should you use it?

If you don't even know what something is, and you explain, well this is how it was done, but I don't know what it is. Will you read John 8.42? Juanita, listen, Juanita, Juanita, would you stop for a second? I'm asking you a question, and you ignore it. I'm sorry, but you won't get a chance to talk. Go ahead. You have plenty. I'm responding to what you said. When I start responding to what you said, you jump in. I'm listening. I stop you from doing it, and then you say you can't get a word in edgewise, and that's not true.

I'm listening. I'm going with what you said, your words. And I just now asked you, was the word personal or not personal, self-aware or not? And you said you don't know.

Then I'm going to ask you a question. If you don't know, then is it wise for you to start using it as an explanation if you don't even know what it is? I know it was the word of God, and the worlds were created through it. What is the word of God? What kind of concept or what, you know, the pre-incarnate. Juanita, Juanita, what is the word of God? Tell me what it is.

I've got my notes right up here. The word of God is, tell me what it is. Okay, the word of God is, what is it?

The worlds were created through the word of God. That's not through. What is it? What is a bowling ball? It's a spherical object that's very dense, has three holes in it. Okay, you describe it by its attributes. What is the word of God?

What is it? God manifested himself in many ways. Maybe the word, the pre-incarnate word, was the fire by night and the cloud by day, or the presence or the angel of the Lord. God manifested himself in many ways. Let me show you something. Let me show you something. Let me show you something.

You don't do critical thinking very well. Okay, I'm trying to be nice, but look, you just said the word of God, the word of God, in many ways he manifested himself by the fire at night, the cloud by day, the angel of the Lord. So fire and a cloud are impersonal, and an angel of the Lord is personal. So now you're saying there's contradictory issues related to what you say the word is.

You're being inconsistent. The word was many things, I don't know. The word, Juanita, if you can't say what it is, you can't say this many things. Define it. I know what it is not. Well, what is it? Define it. I've got my hands up.

Okay, I'm ready again. Define it. Let's talk about what it is not. No, let's talk about what it is.

Okay. The word is not God. Oh, the word is not God, even though the Bible says the word was God.

Okay, gotcha. It is the word of God. It says the word was God, not the word of God. It says the word was God in John 1. No, that's another scripture.

No, that's another scripture that I think has been twisted. But let's get back to what you just said. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Look, you can't say something and expect me to just ignore it. And you do not know what you're doing. Juanita, it's not in the best way.

John 8.42. What? Okay, we've got to go. Okay, notice, folks, she doesn't listen. She doesn't interact with what's really said. This is the sign of someone who's brainwashed. So much heart.

She's the little Tom. 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, everybody. Welcome back to the show.

I enjoy that kind of stuff, but I know it can drive people crazy. Let's get to Ahmed from Arizona. You called yesterday. Sorry. The radio station lost their Internet connection yesterday.

That's why we lost it yesterday. So what do you got, man? Hey, what's up, man?

Well, not much. Just doing some radio. So I'm listening to this caller, so obviously I'll be quiet while you speak, and we can have a respectful conversation. Okay. Because I'm calling on your show, so I've got to show you some respect, man. Sure. So what do you got? Okay, so I've got a few questions, so we'll start out with the big one.

Sure. What causes you as a Christian, right, because we all want to be saved, right? What causes you to believe in the Trinity, right, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Scripture. Scripture? So you base your beliefs in the Bible, right? Yes. Okay. And do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Yes.

Okay. So can the Word of God be changed? Well, what do you mean, can it be changed?

Can someone take the Word and... Can I take a sentence out or add a sentence into the Bible? You can. It's either you understand what I'm saying, but I can't.

Yeah. There's two ways to be said. Hold on. Let me explain. Let me explain. There's two ways.

Let me be clear. Can someone copy a manuscript and alter the text? Yes, it's possible. But do you mean, can Word, the Word that God has himself, that he's given, can it ever be changed that's resting in him? Of course it can't, but the copies can, okay? I agree.

We agree. So what do you have? Do you have the manuscript or do you have the eternal Word of God? It's a wrong question. Because you're setting up a false dichotomy. Is it this or that? Why can't it be both? So you say you have the eternal Word of God and you have the manuscript.

Yes. So can you judge between the two and notice what's false and what's not? No, I don't judge God's Word. It judges me.

So you don't judge between a false edition... Hold on. What's that? Wait. There's a big tone. Sorry, there's a big tone.

There's a big tone in the Word. So repeat it again. Go ahead. Sorry. So can you judge between what maybe a priest might have written in the Bible and versus what is the authentic... Well, yes, I do have an issue with the ending of Mark.

I don't trust the ending of Mark because of historical linguistic issues and a theological issue in there. Okay. Okay. Got it. Got it. Now we've established where you stand, right? Matthew 28, 19. Yeah. So that's obviously a huge, I would say, topic of debate, right?

And Matthew 28, 19 says, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Right? Yes.

Okay. So this is genuine. So you believe that Mark, Peter, Luke, and John, these are all like very close companions of Jesus, right? His disciples, right? Matthew was a direct disciple.

John was a direct disciple. Yes. What about Peter?

Peter was too. Yes. Okay. And these are honest people that you can trust, right? Of course. Because you trust their word. Sure. And we'll get into whether or not they even wrote them, but for the most part, we're just going to say, let's just assume they wrote them, right? So you trust what they say, right?

What they do. Okay. Okay. So in Acts 2, 38, if Jesus told them to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how come not one time in the Bible has any of the disciples baptized, any of his personal disciples baptized in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Why are they only baptized in the name of Jesus?

You know, when I was in Southern California, I used to go body boarding, and some grimies would get in the way, and I'd get a hydro-coffin, and I was craving grinds because of it, and I'd just go out there and I'd give up. Okay. So what I just did was talk to you in cultural terminology from a certain place at a certain time.

And if you don't understand the culture, you would understand what I just said. So, what does it mean to baptize in the name of? When you go to Acts 4, 7, this is the clue for the cultural context. And it says in verse 6, and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and all who were of high priestly descent. And they were placed in the center, the disciples, then began to inquire, by what power or in what name have you done this? And Peter said, filled the Holy Spirit, he said, let it be known that in the name of Jesus we did this.

Okay. He says that in verse 10. So what he's saying is, the authority, that's what it means, when it says we're doing it in his name, in the name of Jesus, that means by the authority of the Lord Jesus. So when Jesus in Matthew 28, 19 said, baptize this way, when they would baptize in the name of Jesus, they're baptizing in the authority of Jesus. And to do that, they would then say, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Okay. Okay. So what about in Acts 10, 48?

Same thing. Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Yes. By the authority of that, because if you go to Matthew 10, you'll see that the disciples had the authority, were given that authority, and he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. That's right.

By the authority that Jesus Christ had given them in the name of that phrase. And if you do any studies on it, you would know that in the name of, right? Okay. I've done studies.

You have? We didn't know that. Matthew 28, 19 hasn't.

I do know that Matthew 28, 19. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on.

Hold on. You said something. I got to respond to it. You said, you know this.

You already knew my answer. So then why did you give the, why did you ask the question? Because I'm on the front of an argument. Your answer is you're nitpicking, right? So you're saying. I'm what? Hold on. I'm what?

I'm nitpicking. So when Jesus says, or when it says in Acts 16, 18, I command you the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her when it was casting out demons that in the name of, does that mean by the authority of? So when they say in the name, right, in Matthew 28, 19, and they say, command the disciples to baptize the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, right? So you can apply the same logic you just made by the authority of in that verse, because they use the same exact word in the name of, and in the other verses they say in the name of. So what's the difference? No, the difference is that by the, what authority do you do this?

They say by the authority of the name of Jesus Christ, that's what is stated in the text in Acts 14. I don't see the word authority. Hold on a sec. You asked me, I'm explaining to you, if you interrupt me while I'm explaining, that tells me you're not interested in the explanation. That's so, you know, if you want me to answer, I'll answer. I'm giving you the exact reference of where it is and what it is, and you dismiss it. And you just want to make an argument.

I've already given you an answer. And every time you say it, I'm just going to say, go back to Acts 4, 6 through 10. And you can also go to Acts 16, 18, I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. It's obviously by the authority, that's what the phrase meant. But it's not the same thing in the Trinitarian formula, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, okay? Because that's a different thing. So, next.

So, are there any verses that they actually do baptize in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit? No. No, there's no recording of it, okay? So I've answered you. Now here's a question I've got. I do this with people, and I'll answer them. And then they repeat the question, and I go, let me answer the same thing I just did. And they'll repeat it, and I'll answer the same thing. And I'm curious, why is it you just dismiss my answer? You call me up, you ask, I answer, you dismiss it, and you go on to the same thing. And I give you the same thing. Don't you see the futility in that approach?

Um, I shouldn't have interrupted you, so I'll be fine next time. Do you see the futility? I don't really see that as a, I kind of, well, I kind of see what you're doing as a, you're kind of reading into the scripture, and it's not there. It doesn't say that they baptize in the name of the authority of Jesus, it just says in the name of Jesus, right? So I'm just reading the scripture, because this is what Jesus said, right? Where's the scripture?

Yeah, I mean, Jesus, in the Red Letter Bible, this is red, it says, in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, this verse, Matthew 28, 19, didn't exist in any Bible before the 15th century. Okay, okay, okay, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Hold on a second.

People call me up, and then they make a stupid statement like you just did, and then they want to go on as though what their statement is is true, and they want to just get it out there and keep going. I'm not going to let you get away with such idiocy. To say that it didn't even exist until the 15th century, you have no idea what you're talking about, none, because it's just not true. So I want to know, where did you get that? Where did you find it, did you make it up, or did you read it off some crackerjack website?

No, we have Professor Paul Clemens, Professor Paul Clemens, look it up there, and then David Whitehouse. Let me tell you, let me tell you, let me tell you, you have no clue what you're talking about. Okay? If you study historicity, would you, okay, look, I'm going to shut you up if you don't let me finish. You told me you're going to be respectful, and now you're not. You're saying stupid things because it tells me you don't know what's going on.

You have no clue. I'm looking at the textual apparatus right now. I'm looking at it.

I have it on my computer. And to say that these things, that the ending of Matthew didn't appear to the 1500s are what? They have manuscripts way before that that have that recorded in there. It's just ludicrous for you to say that. And all you're doing, I'm going to tell you, all you're doing is finding whatever scholar you want to just make it fit what you want it to say. Now hold on. We've got a break. I'm going to come back. I'm going to ask you some questions, and let's see how you do if he has the guts to stand. Let's see. Oh, so much heresy, so little time.

The attack on Christ is getting more and more viral. We'll be right back after these messages. Here's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right. Let's get back to Ahmed. Are you there?

I am still here. What church do you go to, or what's your perspective? Are you a Muslim? I think modern-day Christians have a good love. No.

You're not? I think modern-day Christians have a good... Go ahead. So do you go to church?

I've been to church. I believe in God. You believe in God? The devil believes in God, too? I believe in one God, yeah. Are you any better than that?

Yeah, and I think that's great. Am I better than God? No. No. I said the devil believes in God also, so... Okay.

Yes, of course. You believe in God. What God do you believe in? What God do you believe in?

I believe that all... I believe that God is one being, so there's a few criteria that God has to have in order for him to be God, to be worthy of worship, because if you go up a pyramid in terms of... No, no, no. I just said, what God do you believe in? You don't believe in a trinity. What do you believe in? I believe that a God...

I believe in one God that has to be all-knowing, eternal, and all-powerful. Okay. And is this one God, one person?

Yes, one being. Okay. So let me ask you some questions. He's one person that you can think, right? Go ahead. All right, you can think, right? Mm-hmm.

Is he loving? Of course. He's the creator of everything, so if he creates everything, he has to be the best at all of it.

So Jesus... and no creature can outdo God, right? Right? I agree.

Okay. Jesus said, the greatest act of love is to lay your life down for your friend, John 15, 13. Do you agree?

No, no, I don't. You don't... oh, so Jesus was wrong when he said, the greatest act of love is to lay your life down for your friend? So you're saying Jesus was wrong? Are you asking me if I personally believe that's the greatest thing, or if I believe Jesus really said that? Well, Jesus said it.

He said that, right? John 15, 13. I don't know. I mean, the Bible has mistakes and errors, and I don't know what's true in it and what's not. Oh, okay.

Okay. So you don't trust the scriptures. What do you trust? I feel like everyone's born with the ability to recognize one creator.

There's obviously a lot of truth in the Bible. And where'd you get that? Where'd you get that?

Where did you get that? Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. Where did you get the idea that everyone's just born with the ability... where'd you get that? The natural ability to recognize a creator. Yeah, where'd you get that?

Because if you observe throughout history, you could go to... there's actually studies on it, that's right. You go to... Okay, hold on a sec. Hold on.

I'm being very critical of you. Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. I'm being very critical, logically, of you. You don't realize the logic mistakes you're making. You don't have any way of founding anything, of grounding anything.

All right? You just make an assumption. And you said, a bunch of people say this, so therefore that's why. It's called the fallacy of induction.

And it means that you don't have any way of grounding it. What you're saying is, throughout history, people have repeatedly cried out to God or believed in it. So therefore, that's how come I know it's true.

That's because a majority of people have taught something or believed something doesn't mean it's true. Do you understand that? I said, do you understand that? That's not my reasoning.

I said, do you understand that? I'm not saying that. That's my reasoning. Yeah, I agree.

I agree. Okay, so that reason doesn't work. What I'm going to do is show you something about your own ability to think critically. You reject God's word, so you're going on your own. So what you're saying is, you have a subjective preference by which you judge universal truth.

So I'm asking you to justify your subjective experience and preferences as the right system and the right standard. You're the one. You're offering this. So how do you know what God wants? How do you know? Are you able to answer?

Am I allowed to talk now? Yeah. How do you know what God wants? So we have to look at revelation, right? What revelation?

So we have revelation from... What revelation? Well, there's multiple. There's three main religions, right, that are monotheistic, right?

You agree? Yeah, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Are you saying that God revealed himself in all three? Are you saying that? I'm saying that all three are the same God.

Two of the texts are perverted, and we have one text that is the most that we can know. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Dude, you don't know how to think.

Sorry, but you don't. You say they all teach the same God. Well, then why does Islam deny the Christian trinity?

By definition, it both can't be true, so how can they teach the same God? Exactly. Trinity isn't in the Bible. That's my point.

Okay. You're not getting it. It's whether or not there is or is in the Bible is a different issue than whether or not they're just teaching the same thing, because Islam denies the Trinity, and the Scriptures teach it. Now, that's a debate we can get into, and I can show you where it is in the Scripture, but the thing is that's what the Christianity teaches. So you're saying that religions, Christianity and Islam, they're contradictory on their view of God, so how can they be from the same God?

So did Jesus say, Hear, O Israel, our Lord is one? Are you listening to the words that are coming out of my mouth? I asked you a question.

This is, I do this with people in chat rooms, and I nail them quickly, and I'm doing this to you publicly, and I'm trying to get people to see the vacuous nature of your argumentation, and the fact is, when I pin you, you simply change the topic to something else. I'm trying to show you something. You're not logical. If something's illogical, it's not true. If you're offering something illogical, it can't be true. If you're saying that all three of these major religions teach the same God, yet Islam and Christianity contradict each other, then your statement that they all teach the same God can't be true, can it?

The statement remains intact. If you let me speak for like two minutes, I can explain it. No, I'm not letting you speak for two minutes. I've got to get like three words out, and then you're interrupting it. Yes, I... You've got to understand something. You say something that's not true, and then you want me to let you say something that's not true and not have it challenged.

You can't do that. Sometimes people will come in, they'll say four or five things. Sometimes they'll say four or five things really fast.

They go, hey, wait, wait, wait. I listen to what they're saying. You made the statement.

You made the statement. It's very simple, that all three of these religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, teach the same God. And I'm showing you that Islam denies a trinity, Christianity teaches a trinity.

So how can they both be the same God if they contradict each other about the nature of God? That's my question. Can I answer? Can I answer? Yeah, answer that question if you can, please. Yes, I'm going to answer your question, yes. I'm waiting. So Christianity, nowadays, has changed.

How do you know it's changed? So I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just going to, okay, I'll explain. You know about the council when I see that. Okay, look, you're not answering the question, you're not answering the question, you're not answering the question. What you're going to try and do is say that Christianity never tops the truth.

You're saying, because you're not answering the question. You are an abject heretic. You're trying to use my radio show to get the heresies out. I'm only going to give you one inch at a time.

And if you step in the wrong direction, I'm going to step on your toes. You're the one who's saying this statement. I'm trying to get an issue of logic with you. And the fact is that you can't handle the logic of the question I'm asking you, so you go to something else. You want to say that the Trinity was only developed later on, and it's not the case.

And you want to argue that. But that's not the issue of the logic that Christianity teaches one thing and Islam teaches another. In fact, Christianity teaches Jesus was crucified. But in Islam, in surah 4, 147, it says Jesus was not crucified.

So are they both correct? Yeah. They said that someone was a maid to appear as him.

Right. So to someone watching, they would have believed that Jesus was crucified. And so the Quran says he was not crucified.

The Bible clearly says he was. How can they both be true? Because one has to be wrong. I said, how can they both be true? The answer to that is logic would say they both cannot be true.

Now you're on the right track. Then which one is true? The Quran. The Quran is true. So if I can prove to you the Quran is not trustworthy, if I can prove it to you, would you say the Quran is to be true? Oh, good. So the Quran says in surah 4, 82, it says if there's any discrepancy in the Quran, then it's not from Allah. That's what the Quran says. Right.

Any discrepancy in it. Right. Where's a man's seed formed in his body? Where's a man's seed formed? I don't know. Do you know? Oh, exactly where it's formed? Yeah.

Where's it formed? I hope they're teaching basic biology in schools today. The male testes, would you agree? Right?

Don't tell me you're looking it up. Not necessarily, no. Not necessarily. You mean a man's seed is formed someplace else? Like is it in his ankles maybe? No, in the, between the background and the ribs. Oh, surah 86, 4, 3, 7, let man but think from what he's created is created from a drop emitted from proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

So the backbone and the ribs, that's a chest. Is that where a man's seed is formed? Is that where a man's seed is formed? So have you ever studied biology to find out where a man's seed is formed? When I had my vasectomy, they did not go into my chest. I don't have chesticles. They did not go into my chest, all right? So if the man's seed is not formed in the chest, then the Quran has a discrepancy and by the Quran's own words, it's not from Allah. So there you go.

But what you'll do is you refuse to believe the facts. So what's the fact of where a man's seed is formed? Have you done any homework on that or you not know?

Yeah, no, I've done some research on it. Then where's a man's seed formed? So there's something called spermosa. Where's spermatozoa formed? Where's it formed?

So spermatozoa can be formed. Okay. Go ahead. I'm amused at your foolishness.

Well, come on, you're supposed to be in a vlog class. You're being foolish. You're being foolish. We know where a man's seed forms. We know where a man's seed forms and the Quran got it wrong. And the fact is you don't have the Spirit of God upon you.

You're the Spirit of Antichrist. And the fact is you deny God's word and you affirm the foolishness of the Quran. And that's only one of the many things the Quran has wrong. And you are, according to the Bible, you're foolish because you're rejecting the truth of God. And you are rejecting and you're accepting the foolishness of the Quran. We don't have chesticles. The man's seed is not formed between the backbone and the ribs, as the Quran says.

You should know that. And if you are honest with yourself and you realize that, you'll know the Quran's wrong and you go to Surah 482, then it's not from Allah. Do you reject the Quran? It's that simple. Logic requires it.

But you will not submit to truth because logic reveals truth and you will not accept the truth. Okay. I just have one more question for you. You can answer this. I'm almost out of time, but go ahead. Okay. So, Peter 2.18.

First Peter 2.18. There's the music. There's the music. Can you call back Monday? Sorry. I apologize.

Call back Monday. Okay. We'll talk. Come on. I can't run now.

Come on, man. Dude, we have a hard break. If I keep talking, we're off the air.

It doesn't matter. I can't keep us on the air. We're done. Have a good day.

Call back Monday. Okay. All right. Everybody, God bless. Take a second. I'm out of here. Pray for that guy. Talk to you later. This is powered by the Truth Network.