Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 8772072276.

Today's date is 11-7-23, November 7, 2023. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. We can blab. We can talk.

It's real easy to do. If you're new to this show, I'm a Christian apologist, which means I defend the Christian faith. I discuss all kinds of stuff about Christianity, from politics to UFOs to the occult to demonology to false doctrines, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity Baha'i, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy. I answer all kinds of stuff, deal with all kinds of stuff. If you want to give me a call, 8772072276.

All right. Hey, let's get on the air with Ivan. Ivan from California.

Ivan, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt. I had two questions. One is, who is God and how do you know? Can I ask if you're an atheist or Christian or what? I'm a Christian. I attend a Reformed Baptist church.

I'm a believer, but I just got into precepts. It was probably a couple of months ago and this question is, I mean, I answer it. I don't know. I would rather just get your take on that, like how you would respond to it rather than me give you mine. Sure.

Well, let's do both. I would say when someone asks me that, they say, who is God and how do you know? I'd say, well, he's the Christian Trinitarian God who is by definition is the only God that exists. And how do I know?

Because he revealed himself in the Scriptures into the person of Jesus Christ. Okay. All right. Okay. That's easy. Yeah, it is.

Right. And who are you and how do you know? My name is Matt. That's why they say, who are you?

I go, my name is Matt. So who are you? And how do I know? Well, because the Lord revealed it to me and he opened my heart. He granted me faith. Philippians 1.29. That faith was in Christ. John 6.29. And so I have that assurance of what Christ has done in his resurrection.

So that's how. Okay. On another note, I was watching a debate with Eli, Ayala and T-Jump and I usually think Eli is very sharp and quick on his feet, but it's really sharp in that debate. And I think that, I don't know, have you seen that debate? No, I didn't hear about it.

In fact, I just talked to Eli an hour ago and I'll be on his show tonight with some other guys. But yeah. Okay. Well, there was this one objection or one defense of, I think it was epistemology that the atheist T-Jump made. And he said that he thinks and therefore he is.

And it didn't look like Eli had a good response to it. And he kind of was saying that he didn't have enough understanding of his worldview to be able to make, you know, to, I guess, poke around at his statements. But I was just wondering maybe if you can shed some light on what you would say, because I thought that he was making a claim right there, just I think therefore I am.

And I just wanted your thoughts on that, because it would stump me as well in the moment. But yeah. Well, I don't understand what the question is really, though. So what's the issue? He was just saying that – oh, sorry.

Go ahead. He was just – because he was asking for his ontology, epistemology, and his metaphysics, but Eli was saying that T-Jump couldn't, without God, have intelligibility. And then T-Jump said all he knows is that he thinks and therefore he is. There's a difference between reality and his imagination, and there's reason for intelligibility right there. Yeah, that's what T-Jump said.

That's not very good. He thinks – a lot of times what I'll do with atheists, they'll make a point, and I'll just say, yeah, so what? Because what they want us to do sometimes is just try and refute everything they say, and then they're fishing for ammunition. And so if T-Jump says, I think, therefore I am, I'll say, well, that presupposes the universality of the laws of logic, because you're presupposing the universality of the law of identity. And so, okay, and what justifies the universality of that law from your perspective? He thinks, therefore he is. So you have logic. You have deduction. Yeah, so, yeah, what about it?

How do you justify it? I've had discussions with him. I don't think he's that good. So he thinks he's that good.

An atheist thinks he's that good, but he's not that deep a thinker as far as I'm concerned. That's exactly what I was thinking, but I was thinking on the law of non-contradiction, and I was just thinking, so then I would respond like, oh, so you don't think, and therefore you aren't. That's what I was, because then we can just contradict that, but yeah, you nailed it. That'll be all.

Thank you very much, Matt. Yeah, the precept that you're getting into, let me give you a little bit of hints, but I've got to write some more on it. Just think of this. Think of a table with three legs. And those three legs, epistemology, ontology, rationality, and, you know, existence, thinking, and you can get into morality and other things like this, but knowledge, rationality, and existence.

And so these are the three basic areas of discourse. Well, everybody has a worldview. Some people's worldviews are more sophisticated than others.

You could have a 12-year-old little boy whose worldview is not sophisticated at all, and you could have a 50-year-old atheist who doesn't have a sophisticated worldview, just like a Christian. But when you start examining a worldview, and a worldview is that table upon those three legs, and that table, everyone has one of these, that table is what you believe. I believe that the universe exists. I believe, you know, think therefore I am.

I believe that there's good and bad. Whatever they might say. And those are various things that are on that table. And what atheists do is they pony up to the table, and they argue from that perspective, of the things that are there, then your table is different.

And they'll argue about your table and the things on your table, you know, those little sub-points. Well, you believe God exists. How do you know? What they don't realize, and both groups need to realize, is that those legs that hold up their worldview need to be examined. What justifies, in an atheistic worldview, epistemological certainty? If they don't have epistemological certainty, then they can't know anything for sure. If they can't know anything for sure, they can't know their own atheism is true.

And this casts doubt upon itself. How do they presuppose? What justifies a universal presupposition of universals and particulars? How do they justify these things? I mean, come up with some sophisticated answers that a lot of atheists have tried to come up with. But it ultimately comes down to begging the question, because everyone has to make assumptions that are consistent with their worldview, otherwise they're just inconsistent. But what justifies those worldviews or those presuppositions as being true? So we got here.

That's not a logical issue. All right, how did we get here? Did we just evolve?

Where did this come from? Where did the beginning of life come from? Where did the universe come from?

What are the necessary preconditions for that? What must be the case that the universe exists? What must be the case that axiomatic truths can exist?

And what they'll often do is they'll jump all over these things, back and forth, and they try and throw out terms and concepts. And they'll, instead of just saying that we might be presuppositional, we presuppose the universality of God, and then when we do, everything makes sense. Well, they're going to presuppose the universality of axiomatic truths. And what I'll ask them is, what must be the case in order for the universal axioms to be true? What must be the case in which they have their existence? Because if you're going to tell me that universal axiomatic truths are simply self-extant and self-revelatory, that can only exist in a broader worldview that you can then impose a view upon them.

What is that worldview and what justifies that worldview? But in particular, you have to issue or understand the issue of what's called primary and secondary substances. If you're in a church and you see a bunch of chairs, that's a primary substance. The primary substance is chair-ness, and the secondary substance is the individual chair.

You're seeing the primaries represented in particulars. In other words, you're seeing universal qualities represented in particulars. Well, in an atheistic worldview, how do you justify the commonality and the common ontology between the particulars? Because they can't answer these kinds of questions because they can't justify it. It comes down to the issue of the one and the many. I'm just going through really fast on some stuff, but they don't understand how to deal with the issue of the one and the many. And then some atheists want to get into the is of identity, is of predication, and they want to throw curveballs at you and things like this.

I could teach on this for quite a while. But atheists are weak in their intellectual prowess. They are weak in their foundational ability. They cannot justify the three pillars that hold up their worldview. They can't justify those things. They just say that they are, and that's just how it is because they're axiomatic. But when you ask the questions, what justifies those axioms as being right and what condition must be the case in order for those axioms to be true, they can't answer those questions, but we can.

And so the atheist will fall short, and all you've got to do is kick the pillars, those legs out from underneath their worldview, okay? Right. And I guess the question that I always get sometimes just now you explain that is if they just say, well, they just assume it, and it doesn't matter. I don't have to justify it. I can just assume that it's true what I'm saying.

Good, good. And so then you say, okay, if you don't have to justify anything that you believe, then you don't have the right to ask me to justify what I believe. That's just the way it is. And it's just the way it is that God exists. So if I use your logic, then I refute you because you say God doesn't exist or you lack belief, but if you say it's just the way it is, I can say that's just the way it is. God exists. And when we assume that, everything works.

We assume your position, and you've got all kinds of problems. Then I say to them, next. Okay. Okay. Is this going to be recorded so I can listen over what you just like this course on because I'm going to need a couple of times to listen to it.

Yeah. And maybe Ernie is the one who does this. He takes these tidbits out, and maybe he'll do it, and I can then work through it and try and make it a little bit more cogent because this is impromptu. But atheists like to boast in their ability to stump Christians, and they like to ask justifications for justifications for justifications. I often like to ask them what justifies your questioning about justification. They always beg the question.

They always assume the validity of their argumentative ability, power, prowess, foundation, whatever you want to call it, without justifying that anything that they are doing is the right question to ask because they assume it's the right question, which means they're begging the question about the universality and laws of logic, which they cannot justify. If they say they're just axiomatic, then I just say God's axiomatic, and I win. Next. Okay. Thank you very much, Matt. The Lord bless you. All right. You too, man.

God bless, Ivan. All right. Let's see if we can get to Cliff from Florida. Hey, Cliff.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, what's going on, my brother Matt?

Hey. I'm just doing radio, man. What do you got, buddy? Question, man.

It's about the church that I go to, Real Solid Reform Church. But on current day issue- Hold on. Hold that thought. We've got to break it up. I want to hear what you've got to say.

So it's like I want to get all of this. So hold on, buddy. We'll be right back after these messages. Folks, please stay tuned. We'll get back on with Cliff from Florida. Hey, we'll be right back.

God bless. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. This is Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Cliff from Florida.

Hey, Cliff. Sorry about that, man. Had a break, but you're back on.

What do you got? All right. So, yeah.

So I go to a good, solid, Reformed church here in Florida, in Miami. Okay. But on current day issues, I feel like they really dropped the ball. I feel like they dropped the ball on the vaccine, but that's not what I'm calling about.

Okay. The current issue in Israel, right? We have not touched it in depth at all. And me and some other members of the church, we've been watching and waiting for them to touch on it for a month now, and it's not being touched. Like everybody I listen to online, they've dropped everything they've done and touched it because it has, as Christians, it has a lot of implications for us. And I'm starting to really lose respect for them because it's not the first time they've skirted around or avoided talking about very pressing issues. And I don't want to be sinning with, I just don't want to be sinning. And so what do you think about that? Well, if you're concerned, what I would do is take your concerns to the elders of the church and ask them, why is it you're not speaking on these things?

Because this is relevant and it's important. And you just ask them and see what they say. Yeah. So we have question and answer time, like at our church sometimes, and I put it on a question and answer and it was avoided then. And then I've heard some other brothers at the church, they've asked, well, another brother, he's went to the main pastor and asked him.

And from what I was told, it was sort of brushed off. And I don't mind asking, but my questions can get, I'm going to hold you to the, you know, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire. So it can, you know, it can get a little confrontational, not intending to be, but I'm really direct and some people take that as confrontational at times. So I was avoiding it, but I don't have any problem. And that's probably going to be my next step.

Because I'm not really understanding why they're not doing that. Well, like I said, I ask them and I like what you, I'm starting to like you because you're like, let's talk about it. Let's get into this. Let's do like, yep.

Good for you. So, um, okay. I would ask the elders to address it. That's what I would do. I'd ask the elders, see what they say, you know, go with what the elders say. What if, I'm trying to, I'm trying to ask you a question like to, to like, if, if they answered a certain way, then what? That's what I'm trying to ask now, um, but I can't respond. It depends what they say. They say, we just don't want to get into it because it's going to cause problems.

Maybe they know something you don't know. There's always the possibility that there's some form of, um, let's just say, uh, dissent within the ranks of the congregation where there's division that's already occurred and they don't want to cause problems, unnecessary problems. So I'm just saying it's worth looking at and considering, you know, and talking to them to see what they have to say. That's what I would do that.

Get them the benefit of that. Do you think that this issue in this, this warranty, uh, Israel is, is an issue that, that, that needs to be talked about that every church, um, should be talking about and preparing their flock for or not? Well, yeah, I think, uh, I think my opinion is that the pulpit is a place for politics, religion, discussions, self discussions on self-defense, um, on Democrat versus Republican. I think the pulpit is for those things because the pulpit is the place where the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated through the teaching of his word.

And he sovereign in all areas of life, not just the church on Sunday on the pews, but in everything around us. And we are obligated to obey traffic laws as Christians. We're obligated to, uh, you know, get a second opinion if we need to from our, uh, our doctors. We are obligated to vote and to know who we're voting for, to go out and resist evil, resist homosexuality, the alphabet mob and abortion, you know, the killing fields of America. And so we are obligated to do these things.

And if I was a pastor, I'd be talking about these things. But I, but, you know, I would say, look, I know there's a different, for example, on politics, I know there's difference of opinions on Republican and Democrat. I'm a, you know, I'm an independent. I don't believe in either one. And I'll say, you need to study both sides. And then I do research, I'd show here's what's going on. Democratic party historically is just evil. And so I'd say, you need to know about this. And the Republican party isn't much better now.

It's becoming just rhinos. Say, who are you voting for? And this is serious because of things that belong to Caesar, belong to Caesar, but God to God. But the thing is, you pay your taxes and you do what you got to do, but you're obligated to know what it is you're doing in a political setup.

I don't believe in this separation of church and state because the Bible doesn't talk about it. Okay. Yeah. I agree.

I do agree. Okay. Well, when you move to Idaho, you can be my neighbor.

Okay. I mean, I tell you, I'm in Miami, man. I need this sunshine every day, my brother. That's hard to leave.

That is hard to leave. Maybe I'll move next to you because I'm liking you and that would work. So, you know, uh, my brother, I love, I had a conversation and, uh, I'll call back and I'll let you know. Yeah. Thanks a lot, man.

You too. I liked that guy. That's what I like.

Men who aren't afraid to talk about things a bit gently, but yeah, that's like Jim from Memphis. Hey, Jim. Welcome. You are on the air.

It's actually TMT. I am, but that's no big deal. Hey, um, I really enjoy, uh, regularly listening to you. Thank you. Um, my question is kind of multifaceted. I was reading, uh, just the other day in Exodus 19, cause I was, I'm, uh, uh, studying sanctification, what that means in both New Testament and Old Testament. And it led me to, um, uh, the preparation that God told Moses to tell the people to do to prepare when he, when they came up to the mountain, um, you know, the three days before, which is pretty extensive.

I mean, it's, it's incredible, uh, the preparation they had to go through, um, to prepare themselves. Um, and what it, what it shows me is the nature of God. I mean, the incredible, let's call it otherness of God, which is really his utter holiness and our, or mankind's utter unholiness. You know, and there has to be that bridge, um, which in the Old Testament was, you know, um, through the shed blood of a lamb as frequently as possible and through the priests and so forth. And then we have the New Testament. But anyway, my question is the nature of God has not changed.

Is that correct? I mean, he hasn't become sort of a casual, you know, the way you asked the question and then you kept going with something else. So hold on. You got to ask a question.

Let me answer it. We can go on to the next part because you got a lot of stuff going on in your head there. We got to work through that. Okay.

And we got a break. So hold on. Okay. Hey, we'll be right back folks, uh, with Tim from Memphis, Tennessee, right after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone. Welcome back to the show. As soon as they activate Tim, I can get them back on the air. There we go. Let's get on with Tim from Memphis.

All right, buddy, you're back on. Okay. Um, well anyway, you wanted to answer that first part. Yeah, I forgot what the question was. So basically, basically God reveals himself as this, I mean, as he is and how awesome that is, how holy that is.

And my question is relative to today has, has that, has God altered himself? Okay. So let's right there. God, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Okay. There's the question. Has God altered himself?

The answer is no. God cannot change his nature. He is what he is. His nature is immutable. It is unchangeable.

He always will be what he has always been. Okay. Okay.

Can I go on now? So my, so the preparations, which he required of people to even come into his presence were, were very, were incredible. I mean, the sanctification process. Now I know as a Christian that in Christ, we are sanctified. We are made, um, able to come into the presence of God. Okay.

Without going through those three days of, of, uh, of, uh, works based sanctification. Right. We can count. I got you. So what's your question? Let's get to a question here. Okay. But God hasn't changed. But my, my concern is that we in the church don't treat God as the holy God that he really is.

If he hasn't changed, you, I see so many things in Okay. Wait, hold on. Do you have a question though? Okay.

Yeah. Why do we not treat God as holy as he is? Why do some churches get up and dance and, and carry on and bind this and bind that and command God? Okay. Well, okay.

Let's, let's jump into this. When you say, why do churches not do this? Uh, you can't speak for all churches. You can say some churches don't do it.

Some do. There can be different levels of reverence shown in different ways. You can have, uh, when I was an assistant pastor at a Christian reform church, Dutch people, basically, and their idea of showing reverence to God was absolute silence. Then you can go to a church where reverence for God is, uh, shouting and, and praising his name out loud because they're excited about his goodness. And you can have different motivations and different, uh, realms along that measurement of, you know, in between.

So when you say that kind of thing, it's as though you're, you're, well, you gotta be careful. We don't know all of them. We don't know all the people, all our motives. But now if the question might be, are we as a whole, referencing God as he ought to be referenced?

And I would say probably not. We're probably so comfortable with God. You know, my wife and I have been married 36 years and we're so comfortable with each other.

It's like, yeah, whatever, you know, blah, blah, blah. When we're first married, when we could do this, the attitudes change with familiarity. So I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I'm just saying it's kind of what happens with us all. So we need to practice that reverence in our hearts. It's an individual thing, not a church thing. And the individuals need to do that.

Okay. Cause that's where reverence is. Now, some people say that the pomp of the Roman Catholic East Orthodox Church is reverent. Well, for some people it can be. They like the smoke and the highfalutin attire and all the trappings and traditions and they think that's reverent.

I don't think it's reverent. That just gets in the way. But some people think the opposite. So it's just quite a variety of stuff. Okay.

Right. But I am actually speaking to the attitude of people's hearts and then as that is reflected in their behavior. And I suppose it sounds like I'm being really judgmental.

And you know, I am. I have to admit, because I, you know, the more you learn about God, I mean, the more incredible he is as he reveals himself. And anyway, yeah, I think where it comes down to like the nitty gritty in, I go to prayer meetings at my church frequently. And there are people in the prayer meetings that sort of tell God what to do. You know, they don't pray.

They treat him as though he needs to be told what's going on and then to be told what to do about it. And that rubs me the wrong way, to be honest. It should.

It should. And you need to go to the elders of the church and talk to them about that because people don't, should never give permission to God for anything. And there are songs where I give you permission. You know, the arrogance of such foolishness is being taught. So it's just bad theology, bad teaching. Okay. So, right? Right. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

I mean, it does bother me, like I say, but I think it's my sin, you know, my judgmentalism and my criticism and all that. Well, it's just how it is. But look, tell you what, we've got other callers waiting, so we want to get going on that. I'm glad you're calling. Okay. Okay. All right.

God bless that. All right. Now let's get to Alan from Virginia. Alan, welcome. You are on the air. Hey, Matt, how's it going? Hey, it's going man. How are you doing, buddy? Well, today I had an interesting experience.

I talked to two black Hebrew Israelites today. Okay. And I was wondering if you could kind of give me feedback on, uh, some other points and how to like, um, defend the Trinitarian faith better against them. So, well, one of them, sorry guys, go ahead. Uh, one of them was, they asked where the Trinity is stated in the Bible. Okay.

Now let me respond to that. Uh, to, uh, to ask the question demonstrates they don't understand the Trinity. So when people say me, say to me, show me a verse that teaches the Trinity. I'll say, that tells me you don't understand it. And you need to understand it first before you start asking questions about it, because obviously no disrespect meant, but you don't understand the question or the issue of the Trinity because it's not arrived at by a single verse.

And for you to ask that question just simply means you don't understand. I said, would you like me to teach you what the Trinity is and how it's arrived at biblically? Because I tell people the Trinity is a systematic doctrine arrived at by looking at the whole of the scripture. And one of the things I'll do is I'll ask them, can you please define what the Trinity is? And they rarely ever will get it right.

This is what just people as a whole, and if they do, uh, which is rare, very rare, then, you know, I have a set of questions with them. Uh, but either way, if I have to explain what the Trinity is, I'll say now, so you say the Trinity is false, right? Well, the Trinity is arrived at systematically. So do you know the system that we use to arrive the Trinity?

Because if the system and the approach is wrong, then the Trinity is wrong. That's what the issue is. Okay. You with me so far? Yeah, definitely.

All right. So the two things you do with cults, and BHI is one of them, is you ask them to define the Trinity. We're talking about the Trinity here. Define it. If they can't define it, you have to teach it to them and you need to know it. I go to my website and look up, um, for example, look up, uh, the Trinity examined in depth and it's worth studying.

It's a, it's a large document, but it'll give you basically everything you need. All right. Now that's one thing you should do. You should know the doctrine well, and then you need to go to, or you should, I'd recommend you go to the Trinity table on Karm and look up how the Trinity's arrived at. That's all you need because when cults, they didn't deny the Trinity. The first thing you've got to do is say, well, what is it? Do you understand what it is? Well, there's so many different definitions.

No, no, there's not. What is the Trinity? Do you know what it is? Well, everything contradicts. Look, we're not talking about everybody else. What is it?

You always got to focus on them. What is it? Well, it's, you know, three gods. Nope, that's not what it is. It tells me you don't understand what, what it is. I can tell you what it is, you know? Well, what qualifies you?

And then I can say, you know, all the stuff I've been doing. Say, well, you can go to systematic theologies, Christian systematic theologies, and you can look them up and they'll tell you the same thing. Apparently you haven't studied it. You need to study it if you're going to criticize it. And I'll say, I'll say, don't you think you should know what it is if you're going to criticize it?

Yeah, I know what it is. Well, then let me ask you, how many persons the Trinity teach exist? You know, three gods. We didn't say that. You know, and it's three people.

No, we don't say that. It's three persons. A person has a specific theological significance.

A term does. And so you see, they don't know. And then once you get to where the Trinity is, then you have to say, well, do you know how it's arrived at? Because it's not arrived at by looking at a single verse. Any more than the truth of BHI, you believe, is looked at by a single verse.

You look at the whole of scripture for your position, don't you? Well, we do the same thing. Now hold on, buddy, we've got a break, okay? And folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on here with Alan as the producer frees him so that I can get him. Okay, there we go.

They must be doing something in the background. All right, Alan, you're back on. Hey, Matt. Okay. When those things, I mean, there's a lot.

I don't think we'll even have time for everything, but I'll get started. One of the things I talk with them about is they groaned at the idea when I mentioned that they should be careful about looking only at a single verse, taking it literally and then making a decision on what it means based on that. They did not like hearing that. But you're exactly correct. You're exactly correct. Good for you.

Thank you. And one of the things with this is they use, they talk about how Jesus is below the Father using 1 Corinthians 11 three. Okay. I believe in the crisis that every man, man of God's ahead of Christ, you'd say yes and say, so the man's ahead of the woman. Does that mean that they're different in that they're both of them are not human? No. Okay, well then, then that argument doesn't work.

If you want to say he's the head of, that's not a problem for Christian Trinitarian theology. Not at all. Hmm. Okay. I don't think about saying it like that. It's all right.

It's all right. So you see, the thing is they'll use verses like that and, and, you know, he's ahead of, okay, well, I'm the head of my wife. Does it mean she's lesser than me? Is that what you're saying? And you can see how you suddenly put it back on them and now they're in trouble. So there's that, but there's also the theology that you gotta understand when you deal with cults and things like this. And it's the issue of the incarnation and the position of Christ being lower. He was made under the law, Galatians 4, 4. Made lower than the angels, Hebrews 2, 9.

Under the law, he has to have someone that he would call God. So therefore, when we see that Jesus is calling God the Father, his God, we don't have any problem with that because it's consistent with the doctrine of the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. And I'll say to them sometimes, now, I know that you may not accept that, but at least you need to know what it is we believe and why we say what we do. So if you'd like, I'd be willing to have a little study with you and show you what we actually believe so that you can answer it without continuing in your... No disrespect, man, but you don't know.

It's like an ignorance thing there. We don't want you to bear false witness. Are you interested in getting together and let's study this? No. Okay, well then, you're just telling me then that you don't want to study.

You don't know these things. Yeah. I mentioned you and your radio show and I was wanting to give them your contact info, but they just basically just completely disregarded it. They had basically scoffed at the idea of apologetics and theology and that. Well, that's normal. Of course, they're going to do that.

And why do you think? Because they're not interested in serious discourse. Now, I'm not that good with BHI, but I know people who are and they can clean their clocks. And I'm slowly learning about it, but I need to talk to a few of them and do some informal impromptu discussion debates and stuff like that. But yeah, it's just they are a racist group. It's a racist group because they teach black people are the true Israelites.

And you have to be black. And I've been called a white devil before by some of them. And others are nice.

I didn't quite understand what they meant. Yeah, the issue here is that they're Edomites. And Edomites are the ones, according to them, who are the evil people. And the white people are descendants of the Edomites. So they're the ones who cursed. Some of the black Hebrew Israelites, they like to call themselves Hebrew Israelites now, not black Hebrew Israelites.

It used to be just black. But now they're starting to include American Indians or Indians, Latins and things like that. Yeah, he had a poster that mentioned all of this. Yeah, yeah.

I'm sorry, what? They had a little poster of all the people who basically were the elect in their view. That included American Indians and stuff like that. Right. So they had the 12 tribes. They have all kinds of stuff like this. They have the 12 tribes.

They have a chart. Judah is American blacks. Benjamin is West Indian blacks. Levi are the Haitians. Ephraim is the Puerto Ricans.

Manasseh is the Cubans. Simeon, Dominicans. Zebulon, Guatemala to Panama, or the Mayans. Gad is a Native American Indians.

Ruben is a Seminole Indians. Asschers, Columbia II, Uruguay people. Issachar is the Mexicans.

Naftali are the Argentinians. And they'll include Latinos, Native Americans, et cetera. And white people are of the devil. I found it interesting when they basically were saying that they assumed that I was Caucasian. And I mentioned about how, for example, I assume so.

I never have done any ancestry. Probably. Okay. But I don't know. But I mentioned like people like say like Elon or whatever.

Apparently he's from like South Africa, but he has white skin and stuff like that. And they were like a little bit, I don't know, they felt a little bit weird about it, I guess. I don't know. Yeah. We'll tell you what, we've got other callers that we ought to get through it.

But call back tomorrow and we can talk more about BHI. And I thought there's a lot of factions within them. There's like a couple hundred different factions. They have commonalities, but also some strong differences.

And they're growing. And they're not good at exegesis. They are not good at it. They don't understand biblical exegesis and logic.

They take things out of context all the time, misapply it, and then it doesn't matter what you say. You're just wrong because you're an Edomite. Okay. All right?

Yeah. I appreciate it, Matt. Thank you. All right, man. God bless. Okay. Let's get to Dana from Winston-Salem.

Dana, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, how you doing? I'm doing all right, hanging in there. So what do you got? Okay. I have been listening to you, and you have like, man, you educate me.

And I have been on this deep dive. So the first question is, how come America celebrates the Sabbath on a Sunday when in the Bible, the first day of the week is Sunday, the seventh day is Saturday? Because Jesus was raised on Sunday, and the church started gathering on Sundays. And it says in, let's see, it's Romans 14, 5 through 6. One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. If we're obligated to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, why does it say one man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike?

Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. So if we're obligated to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, that statement wouldn't be there. You can also go to Colossians 2, 16 to 17. Therefore, let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival, which is yearly, or a new moon, which is monthly, or a Sabbath day, which is weekly, things which are shadows of what is to come. In Acts 20, verse 7, on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, that's Sunday. Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. In 1 Corinthians 16, 1 through 2, now concerning the collection for the saints as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do so on the first day of every week.

Put aside these things. So tithing was on the first day of the week, Sunday. And finally, in Revelation 1, 10 to 11, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. The Lord's day is the resurrection day, Sunday.

And I heard behind me a loud voice with the sound of a trumpet saying, write in the book, et cetera, et cetera. So the Lord's day is that day, first day of the week. Okay? So that's why the church does that.

Okay, but what is that? Okay, so, but the Israelite people, like in Israel, they were, you know, the Sabbath is on a Saturday. Is it? Which day is the right? In the Old Sabbath, it says that the Sabbath is the seventh day. Okay, so which day is the Sabbath? The original one is on Sunday. The church started to meet on, Saturday, the first one is on Saturday. And the church started to meet on Sundays. Because that was the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Okay.

And then there's writings that say don't let anyone judge you on which day you worship on. Okay? Okay, I get what you're saying now. Alright.

So, and I suppose, okay, I appreciate, oh, and another thing. How should I feel about the fact that the Bible don't have all the books? Like I was reading the Bible.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. The Bible doesn't have all the books. No, the Bible.

Okay. All the, wait, wait, hold on. All the books. You mean geometry books, mathematical books? What do you mean all the books? Okay, some of the Gospels are not in our Bible, like the King James Version. How should I feel about the fact that- No, that's not correct.

No. It's not- We have all the books that we need that God has ordained for us. They are in the 66 books of the New Testament, Old New Testament. We have everything.

Nothing's missing. So what is this that I'm learning about, about the book of Mary, the book of Thomas, the gospel of Thomas? Those are false, they're called pseudepigraphal documents. Pseudo, false. Pseudoepigraphal, false writings.

Pseudoepigraphal writings. They've existed for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. The Christian church has known about them and rejected them. Okay.

People come along and say, the Bible's missing books. No, it's not. All right. Okay. And just one more last question. Sure. Should I believe? I don't know.

I just want to know the right stuff and I'm just, I don't know. I just, I don't know why, I mean, so the book of Enoch, is that not part of the Bible either? It's not part of the Bible. It's not inspired. And, but it is quoted, but Paul also quotes Menander and Aratus, or Erastus, excuse me, pagan philosophers. It doesn't mean that just because they quote something that it's inspired. Satan is quoted.

It doesn't mean he's inspired. Okay. I get it. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you for that. I mean, I appreciate it. Sure.

No problem at all. All right. Anything else?

No, I'm just learning about the scriptures and I'm, you know, trying to learn as much as I can and I grew up in the church. We're almost out of time. Okay, we're almost out of time, but I'm going to recommend you do something.

Okay. Now, I've got this website that I've been working on for over 28 years and I've got questions answered like that all over the place. It's karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. You go in there and just type in stuff about the Bible. You know, do we have all the books?

Are there missing books in the Bible? Read the articles and it's there. It's designed to answer these kinds of questions and teach good stuff. Okay? Thank you. All right. Thank you.

We've got to go. All right. Well, God bless. All right.

Hey, sorry Rocco. I want you to call back tomorrow about that topic with the rapture and Armand. Sorry about that. Mosaic Christian Church.

I don't know what it is. We'll talk tomorrow about it if you call back. God bless everybody. I'm out of here. May the Lord bless you. Talk to you later.