Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created to help you The Truth Network Podcast presentation is And as always, the number is 877-207-2276. And if you want to email me, you can do that also. Just send an email to info at karm.org.

Info at karm.org. And I'll put the subject line radio comment or radio question. And we can get to those later.

That's what we do. So, having said all that, for this nice September 25th, 2024 date, how about we get on with Mark from California. Mark, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt. I met you at the Strong Tower Conference for Ministry of Muslims.

You met me and my wife, Norma. Anyway, I was going to show you a view of my Biola professor's logic diagram of the Trinity in Christology. And my question was, what's your view of the nature of man in Christ's humanity? And when you look at the two of them, what did Christ exactly take on versus whether it's dichotomy or trichotomy or something of both?

Okay, you're talking about a lot of different topics. Dichotomy is that the human being is consisting of two parts, soul and body, and that where the soul and spirit are interchangeable. Trichotomy is the view that humans are three parts, body, soul, and spirit, so that soul and spirit are separate.

Both are within orthodoxy, and you'll see that the soul and spirit are used interchangeably, which is why some people go to dichotomy, where some like trichotomy because it's Trinitarian-ish and they like that, some other things. Now, as far as the human nature of Christ, he was 100% human and 100% God. In other words, each nature was completely one human, one divine. But Jesus did not have a fallen nature where we do. We are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3. We're born into sin and under condemnation, Ephesians 2, 1. And the reason he was not, the theory goes, is because sin is transferred through the federal head.

Federal headship is that the male represents the sentence. So since I had a human biological father, then the sin nature is passed down from him to me. And so I'm born in that fallen state. And this is why Romans 5, 19 says, through the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners. And what that means is they were made, I think it's passive indicative, which means that it occurred to them. All right. So Jesus did not have a biological father. So the sin nature, the theory goes, we don't know for sure, but this theory was not passed down to him.

But because he's got a human mom, then he has a completely human nature. So I don't know if those things answer your question, but there you go. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And now I sent you back on the 20th, uh, an email to the info at carm.org with a trichotomy, um, was the Trinity, uh, logic diagram that this professor at BOLA had, had made.

I think that might be a copyrighted, uh, thing. So I let you guys know that. That's all right.

One sec though. But you say Trinity, it's different than we're discussion of human, uh, human nature and stuff. But it's, it's, it's, it's the reason it's, it's, it plays in is Christ took on humanity. So that humanity obviously wasn't the fallen humanity. Uh, and he had, he still had his divine nature, right. Even though he had the human nature, right. So, uh, and, and, and the reason I've asked this is because in recent times, um, the trichotomy view of man seems to be really, people get angry when they don't even know there's another view and you just tell them about the two views.

You haven't told them anything and they get mad at you because you suggested that there is, uh, this other view of man that's just too. And then I have an opinion, uh, that, uh, man are born with the two views, two, um, two natures and the third nature is dead because it never kept, you never got it because it died in Adam. No, no, no, you can't look at it and get the third nature. No, no, no. You can't use those words that way. You can't do that. You can't say a third nature.

You can't use what? Those, you can't use the nature that way. Three parts. There's three. There's three, the idea of three parts of man.

Okay. You gotta be careful, uh, when you say parts also. So believe it or not in theology, words, uh, precision of words is important.

So what you can do is say, there's a view called trichotomy, a view called dichotomy, and you don't want to assign the word nature to each of them unless you know about, uh, some philosophy dealing with ontology and and properties, emanations, essential properties and accidental properties and things like that. So you can clarify. I do. I do know. I'm aware of those.

Oh, really? That's good. All right. So what I would say is when I talk to this people and they ask me about it, I say, here are the two views. Both are within orthodoxy and we should not, uh, mock or condemn anybody else for a view that we don't agree with on this particular, uh, issue. That's what I tell them. Okay.

Yeah, yeah, that's what we should do. So, so when, when it comes to the Trinity, man, uh, God took their, their suggestion in this diagram, that what Jesus, what God took on humanity and you, you, you, you, you said it right, but when he took on his asthma, it was limited to the two substance of man, body and soul or body, soul being one. And we can't say, we can't see you talk about the Trinity and then, then you jump over to what looks like dichotomy. So what you're talking about here is the second person of the Trinity becoming in union with the human, uh, person, human nature, and then call it the hypostatic union. So what does that mean? There's, it can get complicated.

It can just make it complicated. We don't want to say Jesus is a human person because the person is not just human, but he is a person with two natures. And so if we say, for example, if he's just a human person, then we're negating the divine. If we say he's a divine person, we're negating the human. So when we get to the issue of dichotomy and trichotomy, and I'll separate that from the incarnation for a moment while we talk about it.

And I will just relate to the doctrines and say, we don't know which is accurate, which one is the correct one. And so we need to be gracious. Now, if we apply them to the incarnation, then we go trichotomy, dichotomy, and see how either one of those views would affect the hypostatic union. You see what I'm saying?

Yeah. And I understand that, um, humanity can't be separate. It comes as a package, this body and the soul.

And if you say trichotomy, the spirit, they're all union. You can't separate one of them out from the other. You wouldn't be that human then. Yes, you can. You can separate. No, I mean, let's just say the body took one away and it wasn't there no more. No, no, no. I mean, you said you can't separate them.

Yes, you can. In second Corinthians 12, two through four, Paul says, I know a man whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, but such a man is caught with the third heaven, heard and saw. Such a man is caught with the third heaven, heard and saw things, et cetera. So the human spirit, let's just use that for shorthand, was separated from the physical body and was continued on consciously after death, after this, uh, in the heaven. Okay. Okay. I agree with that. Uh, after death is separated and, and, and at some point we're going to get a new body, right?

And so it's going to be restored to whatever it is. So that's, that's where the tricky thing comes in with, uh, when somebody pushes the trichotomy view, what did Christ exactly take on as a human? He didn't take on that fallen nature because he had his own divine nature that was there. Well, here's the thing. You see, if we're talking trichotomy, uh, some people hold the view that the soul is in the form of spirit and it's okay.

Uh, so no problem. Um, I don't, I don't know what that really means and I don't want to argue with them about things that are so ambiguous. I just say, okay, it's a view and I don't worry about it because it's within orthodoxy and that's fine. But, uh, Oh yeah, I agree with both views are orthodoxy. Yeah. Um, and I wouldn't really worry too much about the issue of, um, of how it relates to the hypostatic union because the Bible doesn't tell us as long as they don't get too adamant about something that might potentially lead into heresy.

Yeah. Um, I'm not adamant about it all. I just think that dichotomy view fits better when you look at Christ and his human nature that he took on is because what fell at, when Adam fell in the garden, the number one thing that's passed on is the dead relationship with God. Man doesn't have it when he's born, the only way you get it is, is to have godly sorrow and repentance and knowledge Christ as Lord and savior. Then you get the Holy Spirit.

Now you're whole again. So, so that's where I'm coming from is that this idea that comes out of Aristotle, this is, um, in Greek metaphysics of dichotomy and trichotomy, trying to understand the Holy scriptures with those views that, that we, we get from our church fathers trying to understand that kind of miss the point that the Bible's making, that your father made it. One of you, one part of you, I don't want to say, I agree that that part is part of what God did in man, Adam and Eve died in the, in the garden and we just don't have it unless we accept Christ as savior. You see, when you say something died in the garden, then you, what do you mean by something and what do you mean by died? The spiritual side of man, his ability, his spirit, his spirit is dead. Uh, okay. And he, he was born, man was born spiritually.

Okay. If he had two parts, that's a physical body and a living soul, but something else happens when a believer accepts Christ, he gets to dwell with the Holy Spirit. And that's a third part, a part that may be lost, but do you see when you say a third part, a part of the person now is part of his nature. We can't say that. So I don't say that. I just say, uh, now the spirit is indwelling us as is the father and the son. They didn't dwell us, but it is a nature of God gets an inseparable operations. So that's all.

Just when we're born again, God lives in us and we're regenerated. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I just, uh, was running now. I, I, I don't know if you had a chance to look, see how the email sent you with that logical diagram.

Let me see if I can find it. We got a break right now. So can you hold on Mark? Cause we're going to break and we'll get back to you after the break. Okay.

And I'll look for that during the break. Okay. All right. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276.

Let's get back to Mark from California market there. Yes. All right. So I found the chart. Oh, I found it. And I'm not sure what question you have about it. He talks about the end hypostatic, uh, human nature and something that I'm not fond of is three modes of subsistence equals three persons that is too close to modalism. So I don't know what he means by modes of subsistence.

It's so that's not, I don't like the phraseology there, but nevertheless, uh, so go ahead. Yeah, it's not modalism. They're, they're against modalism. Uh, this professor would not agree with the modalism view.

Good. I didn't have him as a professor, the one who made the chart, but yes, modalism is considered a heresy. Yes, it is. It's just that when someone, uh, uses terms like three modes, that is exactly the terminology that would be used in modalism. Uh, so yeah, I think they talk about that. Did they talk about that in there?

Let's see. Because there's only one subsistence in the Trinitarian being because of the issue of divine simplicity, where God is one thing, not in three subsistencees or three modes, but depends on how they want to define the terms again. And that's what really is important, you know? Yes, I agree. Um, the reason I, I was trying to figure why I was, I use in parts and it was Louis Louis Burkhoff, um, yeah, he, he uses that when he's describing the, not the dichotomy, but the trichotomy, uh, uh, definition of the Trinity, he uses parts of human nature in addition to the lower element, namely the soul, when they added the, uh, third element of, uh, uh, of soul for the trichotomous view. And they use the word part in their definition, parts of human nature.

No, they shouldn't. Parts, well, if they, in that context, I see what you're saying, but, uh, yeah, I'm still looking at it. Yeah, that's where I was, that's where I was getting it from his, his, his commentary because his, his commentary was the first commentary that I read that I became aware of the issue of tried versus die. So, um, anyway, my, my idea was just, um, um, this idea that, um, you know, when you, when you look at when God created Adam Eve and, um, the garden, it was more than just a physical death now because of the, uh, sin. It was the spiritual death also.

Yes. So, um, some people have the view that when they go into, um, when man dies, if you die an unbeliever, it's just the two natures that's going into eternity, eternal punishment. And if you die a believer, the three natures. Yeah.

And see, you gotta be careful. Um, you can't look if they're saying each one has its own nature, this opens up other problems and issues and discussions. So just say the person, body, soul, and spirit.

If you say each one has a nature, I understand what you're saying. Oh, we can call them, uh, as, uh, Brook called them, uh, elements. Yeah. The elements is fine.

Yes. Elements or aspects or, yeah. Um, and that's why he does that with a dichotomy view. He does that with the dichotomy, but he doesn't, he never even mentions nature. He doesn't mention nature to who he gets to explain it to our Trump, the trichotomous view, but he does explain that he uses the word element in both, but, uh, you don't hit that. So that's where I'm getting.

So I just like to leave the parts part and let's talk element. Okay. So what's your question then?

What's your, where you go? Well, did Christ take on, when he took on humanity, did he take, did he take on, if you look at man with one of those few, which, which fits better with what Christ is doing when he takes on the human nature? That's my question. What's, what's one of the views would fit better with what Christ is doing when he takes on a human nature?

What is Christ exactly? Do you mean dichotomy or dichotomy? I, I don't get that. I don't say which one is better because then you have to take a view of which one is the proper one.

You have to make a stand. There could be ramifications theorized out of each position. So if Jesus is human and he has a human nature, what constitutes the human nature? Because the human nature is not necessitated by physicality. There's something else of that because Jesus was separated from the body when he, during the three days of his death and he was still human in his nature.

So the hypocytic union is not violated. So right there we have the aspect of, well, we're left over with, is it spirit or spirit and soul? Then we have to get into the issue of, well, if spirit and soul are interchangeable in person of Christ, there's less potential problems for explanations and contradictions than soul and spirit. But not that, that doesn't mean they aren't, it isn't true. So at this point, what we're doing, what we would do is just say, if this means that, then we could look at problems or issues related to it. This is the kind of thing I've found, I have found over the years that people get uppity about and then cause division in the body of Christ over when they get into these kinds of things.

So this has to be the right one. And I don't believe that that should be the case. I think we should be, because the Bible doesn't tell us, so we should not be too adamant about it. That's my position on things like that. Yes, I try not to do that. I try to just explain what I've learned from my apologetic classes. And so I try to just explain and not take, especially when I know that both are orthodoxy, just to explain the view. And I try not to let people know my view.

But people, when you explain something they never heard before, they do get what you could uppity about it. And I just don't know what to do with them. But other than just Romans 14, Romans 14, one through 12, and you tell them that you are not to pass judgment on your brothers on debatable issues and ask them, are you doing that? That's what you do. Hold the feet of the fire in the word of God. Okay.

That's what you do. All right. Yes. Okay, anyway, I don't know if you remember me and my wife, Norma, but we met you at the Strong Tower there and the Ministry of the Muslims. And did you enjoy that conference? I know last week I was at that conference. I took a picture with you.

Yeah, I think my wife took a picture of us. Yes. Yes. So did you enjoy the conference, though? It was pretty good, I thought. Oh, yes. Yes, I did.

Especially I liked all of them. I liked a Smith's information that I heard him about a year ago. So that was like real new information to me right there about the myth of the whole myth that surrounds Islam in their cities, their key figures there.

Yeah, that's pretty good information. And then just the boldness of the people who came out of Islam and in their journey and their testimony, I really enjoyed that and how to be, you know, the ideas of not keeping your mouth shut with your Islam friends, you know. Amen. Hey, there's a break. We gotta go. The gospel.

Yeah, it was a great conference. I really liked it. Okay, well, God bless, buddy. God bless. Thank you. We appreciate it. God bless. Bye-bye.

Bye. Hey, folks, we're right after these messages. We'll return if you want to give me a call. 877-207-2276. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show.

If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. There's a Jim from Minnesota. Jim, welcome.

You're on the air. Yeah. Hi.

Thanks for having me. Quick question. In regards to the ages of the disciples when they were following Jesus, do you, I guess, what are your thoughts on how old they were when they were following him? And then what do we have to support that?

Your opinion. Well, Matthew was a tax collector, and so he would have to have some, okay, well, first of all, the Bible doesn't tell us how old they were, so we have to just draw conclusions by inference. Matthew was a tax collector who probably knew multiple languages, mathematics, and was able to write.

This generally is not something a young man would be capable of doing, and most people would not trust such important things as money, distribution, collecting, record keeping to someone who was young. And so he probably was a mature age, at least in his 30s or 40s, possibly in his 50s. John, we know, lived into his 90s from tradition, and he died in the 90s. So we would say that John was, so John was probably in his 20s at the time of Christ.

Now, James is a brother of Jesus, and we have, or, and was, excuse me, Jude was a brother of Jesus. He was a disciple, but on the outside kind of a disciple, and he would have been a little younger than Jesus, because Jesus was the firstborn. Peter, we don't know much about Peter, but he was married, so generally speaking, he would be at least 20, and probably into the range of 30 by the time Jesus came around.

And it was kind of the custom of young men to follow a rabbi, to follow a teacher, be discipled. It wasn't generally understood to be done of guys in their 30s and 40s. Usually they were in their late teens, early 20s. So the implications we have from all of this is that they were probably in their 20s, maybe a couple of them were in their 30s, and Matthew might have been 30s or even in his 40s, and those are the implications, okay? Okay, where do people go that are, how do people, why do people say that they were like in their early teens? I've heard it said a few times now by a few different people that they think that they were, you know, sub-15, you know.

Is there anything that would support that? Well, again, it's just implication. Generally, they were young when they would follow someone, and also a 15-year-old now compared to a 15-year-old then, different, because they were involved back then in being responsible, being out in the fields, working, carrying on business of the father's house. They were exposed to a lot of things a lot quicker instead of having their heads buried in phones and watching stupid reruns of the Kardashians. These are people who had responsibility, and they matured very quickly, and were quite responsible. So I could see, some might say that they were in their teens, late teens. I could see that, but if they say that's what it was, and you can't say that's what it was, but you could say it might be possible, and that's fair too. They say it's fair, and that's about it.

So I lean towards, they were in their 20s to 30s, early 20s or 30s, but if someone says, hey, here's some evidence that shows they might have been in their teens, I'd go, okay. It's not too big a deal. Okay. Oh, sure, that makes sense. Do you have anything on CARM that talks about the ages of the disciples and kind of that stuff, or no? No, not yet, but because you raised the question, I'm actually starting an article on it, and I'll try and get it out to there tomorrow.

Yeah, no, perfect. I guess I have one more question if you've got time. It's about abortion and the story, the law concerning jealousy from Numbers 5, 11 through 31. Is that a story where it's talking about where abortion would be permissible when you have an unfaithful wife or what? No, abortion is not permissible. No, no, it's not permissible if you have an unfaithful wife.

You can't kill the child because of her sin. No. Okay. Okay, so that Numbers 5 through 11 talks about an unfaithful wife and her drinking something to make her miscarry, so I'm just kind of wondering why God is telling Moses about that, and I guess I don't know. I read it a couple times just because it got popped up.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, here's the thing. If this is something, what they did was, you've got to remember that the Jews were under a theocratic system where God was the one ruling through the prophets at the time, and God was very, very involved with the work of the people and the righteousness of the people. So in the Old Testament, you find a phrase, say to the sons of Israel, and so what that means is God is speaking to the people of Israel very specifically, not to others. So it would make sense to say that those people who were under that covenant obligation would also be under the judgment of God should they break those covenant requirements, and so one of the manifestations of that would be to give a test to see from God whether or not the adultery had occurred, and so God is the one who has the right to remove a life, not us, unless it's under judicial requirement of capital punishment and things like that. That's another topic. So he has the right to do that. So if this thing is drunk, and we know these don't cause abortions, but if this stuff is drunk and then something happens, then we know they would know it was from God and his doing, and that was what was going on because they did not want to have, God did not want God did not want to have a, let's just say, a descendancy arising within the nation of Israel that was, so to speak, illegitimate because the nation had to be pure in its genealogy and its descendancy for the arrival of the Messiah.

And so it looks like one of the reasons this judgment was given by God was, this adultery test was for that, for keeping it, keeping things safe and secure. All right. That's good enough for me. I appreciate your time. Thanks, Matt. All right, man. Well, God bless. You too as well. Thanks. Bye-bye. All right. Next longest waiting is Bella from Utah. Bella, welcome.

You're on the air. Thanks, brother Matt. I had a question for you. Um, my question is, I, and I guess it's two questions, but why is it that Christians generally speaking, uh, really on the, on the concept of Israel have really gotten behind the land of Israel rather than standing behind the fact that we're the house of Israel and the house of Israel as part of God's children.

I just, I just see a growing divide. You know, you've got, and if someone does come forth as a Christian and saying, why are we standing behind the government of Israel? Oh, she's not Christian. Okay. She's a Catholic. Okay.

Didn't know she, yeah, she went to Catholicism and I wish I could talk to her because she's too smart to be a Catholic. So, um, but anyway, go ahead. Right. I agree. I agree. I agree.

Okay. So, so somehow some people are coming forward and they're saying, okay, why are we giving this made of Benjamin, not you who Benjamin nuts and Yahoo, and trying to endorse the land of Israel. And I, and I myself was confused for years as a child. Like, why are we, and people say, well, we're, we're a Judeo Christian. What does that even mean? This, Oh, America's found a Judeo Christian.

I'm like, wait a second. So I find a lot of confusion. I guess I read through it. It says the house of Israel. I just don't hear Christian saying it. Maybe I'm confused.

You know, where's that line? You know, there's, it says it to me in new Jerusalem and where are we supposed to get behind that? Or I don't, I'm not, I'm not going to say my question is, my question is, I guess I don't understand what scriptures validate, um, Christians gave behind the idea of supporting Israel as in, rather than staying in a group. So could you repeat that? Cause you, you, uh, we've lost you for a couple, three seconds.

Go ahead and try it again. I'm just saying, I don't understand why it's my own growing up as a Christian. Why was it that so many people were telling me, I don't understand what scripture references everybody says, we've got to support Israel, we've got to support Israel.

Being the land of Israel, we've got to support it. And it's, we've got to get it ready for Christ coming. And we've got to, I just don't understand the scriptural reference, why that happened and why people, I don't understand why it's happening.

Why, where's the scripture? I'm sorry. I don't understand the question because it's such a varied thing of so many things you're throwing in. I don't, I can't follow you. Oh yeah. So if you had to just say it in one simple sentence, what would you say?

What would you ask? Why, where's, what scripture is it that people are believing to believe we have to endorse Israel, the land? Oh. Why are they saying that? Well, it's not the land, it's the people. The people are all over and they are in the land now. So we don't have to support the land because if Israel people left and the Muslims went in there, we don't support the land. We support the people.

They have to be in that land. Okay. Okay, hold on because we've got to break. All right. So why, oh you're that funny.

Yeah, we've got to break. So hold on. Okay, we'll be right back.

All right. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. We'll get back to Bella from Utah and please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. Just want to give you a reminder that we stay on the air by your support. Please consider supporting us.

All you have to do is go to karm.org forward slash donate and everything you need is right there. Let's get back to Bella from Utah. Bella, well, you're back on here. Okay.

So where were we? Well, I think I simplified my question. Is that all right? Yeah.

So I guess what I'm asking is, so here's what I hear. I hear a lot of people say, oh my gosh, you're anti-Semitic, you're anti-Semitic. But a Christian isn't able to say, well, if you're Jewish, you're basically anti-Christian.

You can't be able to get upset with that, right? Well, you're, so what is the role of a Christian with the Jews? Why are Christians taught to endorse Jews, support Jews, read Jewish history, learn about the Jews? Jews don't learn about Christian history or stuff like that.

So I just, I'm so confused. It feels like there's a lot of hypocrisy there because, you know what I mean? It's like, oh, you're, you're anti-Jewish, but well, all Jews, you know, we've got to, we've got a lot of people in Congress in America who are Jewish and they vote anti-Christian beliefs. A lot of Jewish people in New York, they vote anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not against Jewish people. I have, I know people who are Jewish, but it just seems like the collective body has continued to say, we've got to support the Jews. We're Judeo-Christian.

And I just, I don't know what your beliefs are on that or what's the truth on that or what the scriptures are on that. Like that doesn't make any sense. We're not like, we've got to be pro-Muslim or we've got to be pro-Indo and throw these things in it.

You want to simplify the question. Oh no, am I? Yeah, because, um. Okay, what is the role of Christians with Jews? Yeah, the role of Christians with the Jews is to pray for them and to seek their benefit and to support them because the Bible says he who blesses Israel, God will bless. If you curse Israel, you're in trouble. Okay. Right. But I thought that was the house of Israel, not the Israeli Jews. Does that make sense? But that you're saying Israel is literally the Jewish people, the Jewish religion.

The house of Israel means the biological set of Israelis who are descended out of, uh, let's see, who was that? Rebecca. Let me see. It's been a while. I wrote an article on this a while back and, uh, oh man, where was it? Uh, yeah, I can find it. So I wrote it on, yeah, house of Israel. That's right. And let me get to my article. I wrote it back in August. So Rachel and Leah built the house of Israel, Ruth 411.

It's a biologically related group of people and they can be dispersed or they can be localized. Okay. Right. Okay. Yeah.

There you go. So Israel would be then all of the house of Israel. Like, so if the Jews curse, you know, Christians or whatever, like that's still the house of Israel, right? Like Israel is more than just the Jews. Okay. Okay.

I really appreciate. I just don't know why that's not mainstream that people understand that is the house of Israel. Those who curse Israel don't curse is all the house of Israel, not just the Jews.

So I don't understand why that isn't being taught. Judah, one of the offspring. Okay. And so this is one of the house of Israel.

Yeah, yeah. So the house of Israel is the biological, uh, Jews. Okay. Out of Ruth in Genesis 20, 35. Okay. It's just the biological, the house of Israel. Yes.

It's biological. Ruth 4-11, for all the people who were in the court and the elders said, we are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home, like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel. So it comes out of these women.

Okay. Out of Rachel and Leah, but out of Rachel also comes the Christians, right? Yes, but we're not talking about the Christians. We're not talking about the Christians. We're talking about the house of Israel. The biological, the house of Israel, whoever is biological, I hear a saint of the house of Israel, which is not a lot of the Jews because a lot of the Jews are converted Jews, just like a lot of Christians are converted Christians. So it'd be all the biology of Leah and Rachel. Generally, but you could have people who became Jews 10 generations ago and their descendants are now Jewish and that's fine. So we don't want to get too specific on it. The general thing is you want to support Israel as a group, as a people, as a nation, we don't want to differentiate between which one and how many pints of Jewish blood do they have from Leah and Rebecca all the way back down.

It wouldn't do all that. But just, I see that, but like I have blood from, from those women too. So I wouldn't want to like, I'm included in that. I just, I see that it's like all the people that have that bloodline. So, okay, perfect. Hey brother, Matt, thank you so much. You're welcome. God bless. Okay, bye. Okay, thanks.

Okay, likewise. All right, now if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome brother, you're on the air. Hey Matt, it's me, Patrick.

I've talked to you before. My question is, you know, the woman at the well, when Jesus told her, if you knew the gift of God, you would have asked me for a drink and I would have given you living water. I'm wondering if Jesus was explaining us what the water is in John 3.5, saying it's living water.

No, there are different contexts. John 3.5, as he was talking to Nicodemus, the Pharisee. And in John 4, he's talking to the Samaritan woman at a well.

I've been to that well, I've taken water out of that well. But when he says you must be born of water and spirit, he's talking to us, right? But when he says it was Nicodemus that had to be born of water and spirit. Well, he was saying that, and generally speaking, the interpretation of that is what then would answer the question of, was he speaking to us?

To what sense and what degree? So, water and spirit. Some say it's baptism, but that wouldn't make any sense in the context, okay? Right, there's only three that are mentioned, or people make understandings of it. Either it's water baptism, or it's your human birth, when your birth. Water could be living water, don't you believe, correct?

Those are the three main views, yep. So, if Jesus told the woman, if you knew the gift of God, you would have asked me for a drink and I would have given you living water that will well up to eternal life, how do we drink that living water? By believing in who Jesus is, that he's God in flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, putting our faith and trust in him.

That's what it is. Yeah, but I'm going to say something that your personal testimony, you said you cried the day you were saved, according to your testimony, is that correct? I wouldn't call it crying, I would call it agonizing weeping. Right, okay, weeping, but tears were coming out of your eyes.

More than just tears, it was, yeah, it was profound because of the presence of God. What I'm trying to say, I believe you were baptized with the Holy Spirit with tears of repentance and you got the living water that day, would that make any sense to you? Yeah, you're the one who holds to the idea that baptism is the water of tears, right? Yes, I believe that repentance with full sorrow and remorse will create living water like the woman at the well.

It's foolishness. No, because you know what Jesus, when you ask Jesus, how can you receive it? Hold on, hold on, hold on. Now, when Jesus was baptized, did he cry?

Was that it? That he got baptized, that's what it means? No, the baptism of Jesus was for John the Baptist to complete his testimony, but my point is...

Hold on, let me, hold on. Was that baptism an administration of water? Was it Jesus being immersed or sprinkled or poured water upon?

Which was it? Well, Jesus was immersed in water by John the Baptist, and what did scripture say? When the heavens opened up, the dove came down. Yes, yes, I just asked about the water. I just asked about the water. I just asked about the water, that's all I asked.

I don't need an explanation, something else not related to that. So now you say later on that baptism is your tears. That's what baptism is? Water baptism is now, right?

No, I'm talking about born of water and spirit, which I believe is living water. Yeah, I've talked about this issue with your baptism, because you're the guy who says that baptism in the New Testament sense now, applicable today, is one's tears, right? Yes, but your testimony proves that you did by the day you were born. No, it doesn't. Look, look, look, it doesn't prove anything, okay?

It's written down in your testimony. We're done. We're done, Patrick. I can't take it.

I'm trying to work with a guy. I know who Patrick is. We've had many discussions over the years, not only here, but in different venues.

And let's just say that Patrick doesn't have all his logical or theological pause in the litter box. And as you can tell, I was trying to ask very specific questions. What happens a lot of time in my experience with people who have strange views, you ask a specific question, they kind of answer it, and then they launch into an explanation of something else. And I have to constantly get them back.

No, no, no, no. I just ask this, trying to get specifics. I don't know what it is, but I've noticed in the cult mind, that's very often the case. They just launch into something else, because they haven't thought their issues through, and they kind of have a blanket representative statement. So my discussions with him in the past, they go just like this, and then they get worse where he doesn't even listen.

He just starts talking over you constantly, and then jumps in a different direction. I'm just not going to do that, and so I just cut him off. But the idea, though, that tears are what baptism is in the New Testament, is ludicrous. That's not what it is. And so there is no case of that. And we don't have any case of people crying. We couldn't say the New Testament, that they're all crying when they get baptized, and that's what it means.

It's just not there. So his logic is pretty bad, and he doesn't understand. It's really kind of interesting to me.

I enjoy this kind of stuff. I enjoy encountering individuals who are just surprisingly irrational. And the mental state and machinations, intellectual machinations that they have to have in order to make something fit, and it just doesn't. And when you point it out, they ignore what you say. You just ignore it, and then they go on. And I don't know what that is. I'd like to talk to an expert, a psychological psychologist expert who knows about stuff like this with the mindset, what these words are, why people do stuff like that, because I find it interesting.

Whatever. OK. Hey, we've got about one minute in the show now. I just want to let you know that you want to give me a call tomorrow. The number's 877-207-2276, and we do need your support.

Please consider supporting us. All you have to do is go to karm.org forward slash donate, and the information you need is right there. And so for the past few days, I have gone to our Amazon KARM account, and I have uploaded three manuals that you can now get them straight from Amazon. A fourth one is in the works, and I have to link them to the store on Amazon one thing at a time.

But you could go to Amazon and type in books manuals from Matt Slick at Seaver's. And I sent him a newsletter out today that has the links to those things along with some other books I've written. That's some other stuff. So one of them was on Roman Catholicism, one was on Mormonism, and the other one was on basic Christian doctrine. And another one was like 300 pages or so on the Christian defense manual.

And these are just a bunch of articles put together to help you have some basic stuff. And there's the music. I got to get out of here, but the Lord bless you. And by his grace, we're back on the air tomorrow, and we'll talk to you then. So have a good one, everybody. God bless you. Bye. Another program powered by the Truth Network.