Biblical Prophecies

Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the

Bible. Meet your hosts, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Pastor Justin Morris.

Alright, well welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your challenging questions about God and the

Bible. Anything you have that you'd like to discuss, we are here. Just come to ApologeticsLive .com

and challenge us with your best arguments. As you can see, we're not actually in your studio.

We're not in my studio. I mean, I wish this was my studio. I do wish this was my studio. Do you want to tell folks where exactly we are right now?

We're in a secret location. Ah, there we go. I was preaching. I'm hearing there's a lot of static on our ends from Drew.

Oh, okay. Drew says there's static. Alright, is it noise or static?

So while he's answering that, so I was preaching at Pastor Casey's church at Beulah Baptist Church.

I almost said Bible. That was the thing. Beulah Baptist Church in Winter Garden, Florida.

And Dr. Anthony is teaching Wednesday nights there right now on evangelism. So we both happen to be down here.

And so someone is saying static. Alright, let me try changing the audio.

Now I heard static on my... Did you? Yeah. Let's switch to that. And why don't you listen there and see if that's any better.

The one thing I couldn't really do is do some testing beforehand because there was no one in.

We already got our first question. So let us know. Timothy Oliver is saying that is better.

That's really surprising. This is a pretty good mic and we're just using that mic. So, alright, we will do that then.

Thanks for that. Sorry for the static. Hey, it's a live show.

Sorry. So we are in Orlando, Florida right now. And this is the beautiful view that we have from our balcony.

And later tonight, during the middle of the show, we should see right about there,

I think, is where we'll see some fireworks. Probably in about an hour. Yeah. Almost right behind us.

Yeah. So the neat thing is Dr. Svesh was on the other side of the hotel and either one of us get fireworks.

All right. So tonight's topic, biblical prophecy. We had, for those who don't know,

I was on a podcast where someone had asked about how I became a believer.

And in that, I talked about biblical prophecy. He wanted to discuss that. So he's coming in.

We're going to bring in Chris May. Chris, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me.

So we didn't, folks, we did not have a really a setup where Chris was like, hey, this is what

I specifically want to speak about. So we just, as you know, this is a live show for those who watch regularly.

Anyone can come in with anything. So if you want, just go to ApogexLive .com, scroll down to where you see the duck icon.

That's the icon for StreamYard and join there. So anyone that has any questions, you're welcome.

I saw one question that already came in. So, Chris, let's have the discussion with what you wanted to talk about.

The only thing, Chris, I do have to admit, I have to be careful because my hair's thinning here.

So I got to keep looking up at the camera above me. This is a terrible idea. Chris doesn't have the problem that we're struggling with here.

Yeah, I've got a little bit. Not as much, my friend. But I wanted to try to get this beautiful view, you know, as best

I could. So, Chris, let's start off with asking, you know, gathering from our very brief discussion, you're not a believer in Jesus Christ.

Would that be accurate? That's accurate. Okay. So why don't you introduce yourself and what your belief system is?

Yeah. So I think I'm more just kind of interested in studying the

Bible from a historical point of view. Kind of just reading the scriptures and reading, you know, the

Old and New Testament, just trying to kind of see where I can find information that correlates with, you know, historical information.

And also I'm interested in just theology in general and just the overall belief system and how it kind of corresponds with the first century and other religious beliefs.

And so I kind of look at the Bible and read it from, I guess, a historical context, trying to kind of piece together what the original intent was of the authors.

You know, what was the setting, what was trying to be communicated and those kind of things.

So I'm not reading it, obviously, from a theological or a believer perspective.

It's from a, I want to learn more about it and understand it.

Okay. That's kind of where I'm coming from. All right. And so folks saying there's still static or fuzzy sound.

Is it just background noise? You sound pretty good to me now. I have changed.

I did change the microphone to the laptop microphone to see if that works.

Good thing we got this nice, you know, $70 microphone. They are the static guys, huh?

So KT is saying we're the static guys. Okay. Well, at least

Sean is saying sounds good now. We will use. Okay. As a professional podcaster, folks,

I tell people never use your laptop mic. I tried the nice $70 mic.

I tried the webcam mic, but oh, well. So we'll go with this so that we're not the static guys.

All right. So Chris, did you grow up with any kind of religious upbringing?

You know, I had grandparents and close relatives who were certainly would consider themselves religious and Christian.

I mean, you know, I've certainly been to churches and especially early on.

I think when I got to the age where, you know, I was allowed to pretty much make up my own decisions and make up my mind on things, you know, it was probably more sporadic, more just going in various times, you know, with other people, but certainly it was nothing consistent.

And I wasn't a believer probably since early teens.

Okay. Okay. So so let me let me if I could.

But I would also add that I don't think I gained a real strong interest in it probably until like late 20s, early 30s.

So for this audience, let me just recap a little bit of what you heard on. And was it

Eli Allah's podcast that you heard it on? Yes. Yes. All right.

And so let me just recap for folks here that may not have heard that podcast. So part of what we we talked about there was

Eli had asked me how I became a believer in Christ. And part of my testimony was the fact that I had, as many of you know,

I grew up Jewish. I unfortunately, to my shame, believe that just because I was Jewish, I was

God's chosen people. I was automatically going to heaven. And Chuck, the the bus driver that I was on a team tour with, he had gone through prophecies and I calculate

I was trying to calculate the prophecies. And I had said that I and if you've heard my testimony before I talk about this,

I put those prophecies in two camps. One is self -fulfilling, which I don't consider something we should be counting in in this equation.

The other is coincidence. Those that just happen to be true. The fact that Jesus happened to be born in Bethlehem happened to be born of the line of David.

You know, things like this that we could we could figure out how many people were born roughly within four hundred ninety years of Cyrus's decree to rebuild

Jerusalem, because we know from Daniel that time frame for the Messiah to be on the scene. So do we have how many people were born at that time in that area from that lineage?

And there's hundreds of others that we can look at. And so part of what happened with me is

I looked at those prophecies, realized it was beyond 10 to the 48th power, which is statistical impossibility.

And I came to the belief that the New Testament had to have been written by God. And then

I want to know what the New Testament taught. I talked about Jesus death, burial, resurrection and recognizing

I was a sinner was not very difficult. I know you're not surprised. But it was it was on that I ended up realizing that I needed

God, which I didn't know before. I think I needed a savior. And that's so that was my testimony.

And so, Chris, you had you had made the point online and I said, hey, let's come in and discuss it.

You had the point online that you said that that some that the prophecies could have been written after the fact.

Was that basically the point you're making? So the

New Testament prophecies? Yeah. Yes. Essentially, I mean, you hold the same.

Actually, I'm curious. Do you hold the same since you made this distinction in New Testament? Do you hold the same with Old Testament prophecies?

That they could have been written after the fact. Yeah. Oh, it's certainly possible.

Yeah. Let me ask you this just out of curiosity. I know you want to focus on New Testament, but are you familiar with the

Dead Sea Scrolls? I am. OK. Are you familiar with the Isaiah Scroll? I am.

Wow. Yeah. A little bit. All right. So the reason I asked that one is because there's two

Old Testament books that are often by the liberal scholars.

They would argue that they really weren't. They're written either after the fact by multiple

Daniels and multiple Isaiah. So the idea is that the book of Isaiah was written by two.

And I've heard even three different people. And the reason they would say that is because they would say that because there's so much prophecy in it, they wrote afterwards.

And same with Daniel. The idea that there's two Daniels, one that wrote the first half, one that wrote the second half.

So we have all the prophecies that was supposedly written after, you know, during the time of Rome.

And the reason the reason I bring up the Isaiah Scroll is because what the

Dead Sea Scrolls did was predate the earliest copy of Isaiah that we had by a thousand years.

And we see that there's no changes in a thousand years of that scroll of the book of Isaiah.

And we can now predate that to before Rome. So it's before some of the prophecies that were made.

So have you are you aware of that? Let me ask it that way first. I'm aware that, yeah, there was scrolls of Isaiah found in the

Qumran community, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But so you're saying that the Isaiah verses that you feel predict or foresee

Jesus like the suffering servant verses? Is that what you're saying? Yeah.

So so the reason that becomes that and others predate one of the arguments that the liberals would make is that Isaiah was written after the fact.

Yeah. And I would never make that argument. I think those verses are in there. I mean, the argument of, you know, how many

Isaiah's there were to me isn't really. Yeah. I mean, that wouldn't really change whether it was an accurate prediction or if I don't really hold that as a negative or it wouldn't be part of my argument to say that because I think there's multiple

Isaiah's that that renders it. Yeah.

More than more the issue that the the prophecies we can now know that the prophecies can be dated to before the actual events.

Now, Anthony, you put up a comment from Timothy. Yeah. So you want to read that? Yes. Tim Oliver wrote the

Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah is, in my opinion, one of the most important archaeological finds. And I would

I would agree with that. Isaiah 52 going into 53 is really so clear about the

Messiah. And and to be clear, too, about what you're saying about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940s.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls were put in the Qumran in the Qumran caves somewhere in the 400 year period of silence before Jesus.

So we have we have a verification that we have two thousand years of the

Bible being copied and copied and copied and being unchanged. And I say the book of Isaiah being one of those books.

Yeah. I mean, that's one of the reasons when I when I go to the Museum of the Bible, they actually have a copy of the

Isaiah scroll they have there. And that's one of the reasons I actually talk about that, because, Chris, one of the things that that ends up doing is is showing us the importance of it is the fact that you have the the liberals who argue that these prophecies were written after the fact.

And then we get something that predates the events so that we can know for sure.

These are actual prophecies. These are things that happened beforehand. Does that at least make sense to you?

Yeah. And again, I wouldn't argue that the verses in Isaiah was at 53.

Well, I'm not even just arguing that. Because, I mean, Isaiah is filled with a lot of prophecy.

Sure. I mean, I wouldn't argue that those are written after the fact to show fulfillment in Jesus.

That's I think they were written well before the time of Jesus. OK. We have a question that came in for you, actually.

D is saying, what is the main reason for Chris's unbelief or doubt?

I mean, prophecy is one. I would say what, you know, kind of what

I would like to kind of emphasize is the second coming. I think that it's pretty clear throughout the

New Testament that the writers predicted and foresaw

Jesus returning in the first century. OK.

And that didn't happen. And the second coming. So what passage,

I'm going to assume, I know it's passage, but which passage are you referring to that would say that Jesus came in the first century?

Well, Jesus didn't return in the first century. That's the argument. It was predicted that he would come in the first century.

Yeah. Where was that prediction? So that's in Matthew 24. OK. So if we were to look throughout the

New Testament, pretty much every writer is writing with the expectation that Jesus is imminent and right at the door and coming in any minute, any hour.

OK. And that's through Paul's writings as well. In fact, I would argue that Paul expected to be alive when

Jesus was going to return. So I'm just trying to find the exact verse, but I'm sure it is where it says it refers to.

I'm going to assume at least Matthew 24, 34, where he is truly, truly.

I say to you, this generation will not pass away until these things take place.

Would that be what you're referring to? Right. That would be a good starting point. OK. So what we have here in verse 34, the question is, which generation is he referring to?

Is he referring to the generation standing in front of him? Or as we see within the context of this, could this be the generation that sees all the things he described?

So, in other words, in Matthew 24, he talks about all the signs.

That's actually, I believe, in verse one, if I look. Right. When he's talking to the disciples about the temple.

Because I believe that, yes, in verse three. We almost were able to get a shot.

To answer your question, I would say both. He's talking about that generation and he's talking about the generation that all these things will happen.

Yeah. So the question that's asked is in verse three. It says, and he was sitting on the

Mount of Olives. The disciples came to him privately saying, tell us, when will these things happen?

And what will be the sign of your coming and of that age?

And so Jesus answers that with a bunch of signs. And he says, truly, truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away is now verse 34 until these things take place.

When I look at this, it seems to indicate it's the generation that sees the signs that will not pass away.

And so I would argue that that generation may or may not have occurred yet.

I mean, it may be our generation, but it could be a future generation. But my understanding of that text would be to show that Jesus gives a bunch of signs that are going to occur.

And the generation that sees those signs, when those signs begin, it's one generation before he returns.

And so it wasn't the generation I would argue is the first generation. So you would you argue that all the signs are century generation?

Would you argue that all the signs of Matthew 24 have already occurred then?

Yes, everything up to the coming in the clouds. OK, now you got me here.

So you believe that Jesus already came in the clouds? No, everything up to the coming in the clouds.

So everything up to the final judgment occurred. So the destruction of the temple in 70

A .D. occurred, right? Everything leading up to that occurred. Earthquakes, famines, rumors of wars.

All those things are documented by Josephus in the

Jews. So what I don't understand, can I just ask this question, Chris? I mean, you're you're you're an unbeliever, right?

But you're trying to interpret the Bible to believers. If you want to look at it that way.

I think he's trying to understand what the Bible actually is. OK. Right. Would that be would that be accurate,

Chris? But I don't think the Bible is just for believers. The Bible is literature. It's a written.

That's document that can be interpreted, you know, thousands of different ways it has.

Well, and that's probably where we would differ, because if you pick up a book at the store, you know, or the library, you read the book for what the authorial intent is.

And there's not thousands of ways to interpret a book. There's there's one correct way. And it's the way that the author intended for it to be.

I agree. And so we would say the Bible is the exact same way that there is one proper interpretation of that Bible.

And so the question is, is which one is that proper interpretation? Well, let me ask you, are you familiar with Flavius Josephus is writing?

Yes. Yeah. OK. So. So do you have you read that he documented all these things having occurred?

Yeah. And many of those things. I mean, what we see in Matthew 24, I'm almost tempted to read some of most of it just so we get context.

But but a lot of it has been throughout history. Right. We have heard of rumors of wars almost always.

Right. You know, you look, I would say, even in this country, in America, where we don't go to war often.

And yet we were involved in other than the four years of Donald Trump. You've got to go way back before there wasn't a president that had some conflict where there was some rumor of war.

You know, so we've we as even as American, our 200 years of history have been involved in that.

So so some of these things have always been, I think. I would agree with that.

But any any generation can probably find the majority of these things or at least interpret the majority of these things in their context.

Good. OK. And that's where I think you and I would agree, because I think I think what Jesus does here with some of these is give something that's so general that every generation would expect that now could be the time.

Because I do believe that that's what a main part of what Jesus is trying to indicate is that any time could could be the time.

It's this isn't the first time that the that the first sorry, that the disciples asked the question of when the end times were going to come and you're hearing the fireworks.

I don't know if that's fireworks or lightning. I'm trying to figure out. I think it's probably Epcot on the other side of a building.

But these verses are in context to the destruction of the temple. So these are specifically set within that context of the first century.

And if you read Luke's version, it's even more clear. And and yet the temple doesn't show up in the passage.

So how do you come to the conclusion? Well, the surrounding, if you read Luke's version, the surrounding of the armies and they were taken by the sword and they were led off.

And that's exactly what Josephus documents that. Well, yeah, but just because there's similarities doesn't mean it's the exact prophecy.

Right. I mean, I mean, I could I could give you. And I'm trying to remember the name of the book offhand.

I don't remember it offhand, but there was a book written prior to the sinking of the Titanic, actually prior to the creation of the

Titanic. And it talked about a great ship that sank after striking an iceberg and that many lives were lost.

And I forget the name of the book. And I think the ship was called the

Great Titan or something. It was a fictional book. And there were a lot of similarities between that and what happened with the

Titanic. But that wasn't a prophecy of the Titanic. It was never seen as a prophecy.

So just because there's similarities doesn't make it that that's the fulfillment of the prophecy.

So and the abomination of desolation, which originally applied to.

The time of the Maccabees, but is also being applied by Jesus to the

Roman. OK, so there were so when you have one of the things we often see with prophecy is the fact that you have usually a near term and long term prophecy.

And there's a reason for that. You take, for example, the prophecies of Daniel. There's things that Daniel prophesied that occurred within his lifetime.

And there's things that were well beyond his lifetime. And there's reason for that.

If Daniel prophesies that something is going to happen and.

You know, that doesn't happen, then you know that the long term prophecy isn't going to happen either.

He's a false prophet and you stone him. And so that's one of the reasons many of the prophets would give both a near term and long term prophecy.

So you could see that the near term occurred accurately, therefore, the long term will as well.

Does that at least make sense to you? It does.

But so if you look at the beginning of Matthew 24, one. The context is about the temple, correct?

No, that's just that is where they giving details of where they came out of.

It says Jesus came out from the temple and was going away with his disciples and came to the point to point out the temple buildings to him.

It says, and he said to them, do you not see? Do you not see all these things?

Truly, I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another which will not be thrown down.

So he was coming out of the temple. Having a discussion about the temple, but then it says and as he was sitting on the

Mount of Olives, so he he he left the temple, has that discussion. And now the rest of the discussion is later.

Now, though, we read this overlooking the temple because the Mount of Olives was a location where and that was a location where a lot of prophetic and time prophecies were predicted.

Correct. Right. And he's talking about the temple. He's talking about one stone not being left upon that.

OK, so that portion, I would agree. The first couple of verses. But it would be like if I was to write a book about your life,

Chris. And I mentioned something that happened when you were 12 years old and then skip this on.

Happened at 14 years old. Within the writing is very short. Right? It's and that's what we see here, because you see him coming out of the temple, having the discussion as they come out of the temple, and then they get to the

Mount of Olives. That's not a I've walked that walk before.

That's going to that's going to take at least a couple of hours to get there, to over to where they are in the

Mount of Olives. That's not an easy walk because you're going uphill. And so you're you're assuming that these two separate conversations are tied together.

So who who would be the audience that he's talking to in the. Oh, good question.

Matthew 24. The scriptures tell us in verse three, as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately.

So notice all the use. In the following verses, he's talking directly to the disciples saying that you will see these things.

You will be involved in these things. So he's setting the context.

He's not saying you, as in 2000 years later, general reader, he's saying you, as in the person

I'm talking to, i .e. the disciples will be saying these things.

He's telling them they have a direct involvement in what's going to occur here. So if you look at verse four.

If you look at nine at that time, they will deliver you up to punishment and put you to death.

And so you you believe that he's speaking directly to the disciples, the disciples.

OK, if we were in a conversation and I kept using you, the pronoun you write.

It would be referring to there would be no other way to interpret that other than I'm talking to you and referring that these events are going to occur to you.

And I think if there is confusion about the generation, if you go to Matthew 23, 33, that he's talking to the

Pharisees and the scribes and he makes it very clear he's talking about their generation.

In in Matthew 23, 33, that says you serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Right. And therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.

And upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth from this blood of righteous able to the blood of Zechariah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Truly, I tell you, all these things shall come upon this generation. And he's talking to the scribes and the

Pharisees. And there's actually a parable about the tenants where he tells them that and they actually understand the purpose of his parable.

And they know it's directed at them, right? Yes. Correct. So he's directing a judgment towards them in the first century, not a judgment on some future generation of people.

Yeah. And so. I can also point you to when he's carrying the crucifix or I believe it's when the crucifix being carried for him and the women come up to him and he tells them that they say they want to weep for him and he says, no, weep for your daughters.

And he refers to them, actually, that there is an impending judgment coming.

Which is the judgment on Jerusalem, but also the final judgment. Let me and I was going to make a comment, but I see

Cole's comment here and Cole is backstage, so I'm going to bring I'm going to bring Cole in and let him ask his question.

So what is the statement? More of a statement. You're right. It was kind of a statement there. But what do you what do you think of where the book of Revelation fits in the timeline according to in in relation to the temple being destroyed?

Because the book of Revelation is, in my in my opinion, beforehand, because I can my comment there is like it talks about things that were are and will be.

Yet there's no mention of the temple being destroyed at that time. In that book, you're asking me.

Yeah. So, you know, I've heard Revelation being dated prior to 70

AD and for like 96 AD in the time of. So you think the book of Revelation came after the temple.

Right. The destruction. Yeah, I would think it probably comes. But there's a verse in the beginning of Revelation where it talks about Jesus coming again in judgment on the clouds, similar to the verses in Matthew.

And it says those who who pierce Jesus will also see him.

So, again, referring to those who were alive at the time, we'll be seeing

Jesus coming on the clouds. I think it's worse.

I've heard some people while you're looking at it refer to the coming in the clouds.

It's it's it's a very similar language structure to how in the

Old Testament judgment came to Israel when the Lord would come in the clouds and he would bring judgment.

So I think that's I think post post millennials take that view quite a bit.

I think and I think historicists also do. And just for the audio,

Chris is looking something up. So I don't want to say verse. Verse six.

This is what passage for Revelation one one six one seven one seven.

Yeah. Look, he is coming with the clouds. Every eye will see him, even those who pierced him.

And on his account, all the tribes of Earth will wail. And interestingly, you have when

Jesus appears before the high priest, he actually says to him that he will see the son of man returning on the clouds.

And that's when, you know, he gets really pissed off and rips his garment and basically says he needs to be put to death.

So he's actually saying directly to Caiaphas that he will see him coming on the clouds.

So another another, you know, direct you will have to be alive to see me come.

Well, I would agree with that because that him being angry and also for thinking

Second Temple Judaism and that verbiage of judgment. That's pretty to them,

I would say. And I agree with a lot of the opinions I've heard of people that have studied that old the

Old Testament stuff and even the contemporary writings around them that that verbiage is repeated over and over for direct judgment of Israel.

And that judgment came at 70 AD. So and with the way Revelation is, you know, contextualized where John is told to write things that are or things that were things that are things that will be.

It would fit in that context. Some of that. Yeah, and I think, you know, that's a good.

Initially, I thought a lot of those verses could refer to the coming of judgment on Jerusalem.

But I've come to think for a while now much differently that these are second coming.

And the reason why, if you read Luke, Luke makes the passage about the son of man coming on the clouds.

Well, after he talks about that, the verse about that, they'll be put to the sword and they'll be taken to the around all the nations basically as slaves.

So he makes that verse clear that the son of man comes well after the destruction of the temple, which then puts that as a second coming.

And not as the other problem with saying it's part of the destruction of the temple is who saw

Jesus coming on the clouds at the destruction of the temple. Now you get into like the partial preterist view where you're talking about some invisible

Jesus. Well, most people hold to a partial preterist view.

It's the full preterist view. That would be an issue to say everything was done by 70 AD. But I think

Cole's point is the fact that we have the book of Revelation after the temple. And yet many of the things described in Matthew are also described in Revelation as still future after the destruction of the temple, meaning that it couldn't have referred to the destruction of the temple.

My position is that Revelation is written before because there's no direct reference to it. Okay. So you believe.

I don't have an issue with dating it before or after. I mean, I. My opinion is it was probably written after, but I don't.

I mean, it doesn't. I think it's written with the intention.

If you look at like, again, the language of the seven churches, if you look at the language, like if you pick the one written to Philadelphia.

That's again telling that a judgment is coming upon the whole world. And that they're going to be saved from that judgment.

And he says he's coming soon. So it's another language, which, again, takes it away from a context of just a judgment on Jerusalem, because the whole world is not just the localized judgment.

So, again, this is second coming kind of language. But he says it's coming soon.

So, OK, I just I have to have a I have to add this question. Let me just thank Cole and Cole, put you backstage for a bit.

If you have more questions, come on back. So just to be clear, I'm still not post mill.

This is a stevia pop for soda. Not that I'm against alcohol.

Just saying. OK, so in this orange flavor, too, it is it is zero calories, zero calories made out of your sugar.

So it tastes made out of stevia. It is fantastic. It's OK, Chris. I want to kind of get to the bottom line because we can we can go over scripture all night long.

But I think that's what's important to go. Yeah, I think. Yeah. But let's say let's say that that your position's wrong.

Andrew's position is right. OK, do you repent at that moment of what you trust in Jesus Christ?

No, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. But see, that's because if your main goal is just accepting

Jesus and forgetting whether. It's true that Jesus is returning or whatever we're discussing, then it just becomes.

Yeah, but I agree that it's pointless to even have any discussion about what scripture says.

I mean, I know that it's true and we'll just wait and. Well, I mean,

OK, so this is an apologetic show. And so, you know, I want to speak to everybody listening tonight and that I'll be listening on the podcast later.

I mean, this is a very common occurrence when when Andrew's out evangelizing and evangelizing, others are evangelizing.

Which we're hoping to get to a little bit later. Chris came in. But we want to tell you some some of the evangelism we've been doing this week.

We've got some great evangelists so far. I mean, every night's been great. But the point is, is that I have run across people for years now and probably hundreds, if not more than that, that have said, you know what?

I just there's just not enough evidence for Jesus. It's somehow some way. That's what it boils down to.

There's not enough evidence where they have different parts of the Bible they don't believe in. Or there's there's too many question marks in the

Bible. So I say, look, if I can answer every one of your questions to your satisfaction, would you then bow the knee, repent for your trust in Jesus?

And guess what the answer is each and every time? It's always no. Which goes to show this isn't an evidence issue.

This is a heart issue. This is a sin issue. And in the end, I mean, I'm happy to sit here for the next, you know, however long you want to sit here,

Chris, and talk about the the scriptures and go through them. Because they're important. Because it's important.

I mean, we have a reasoned faith. You know, we we we can work through these scriptures. And we have friends that are that are here.

Well, one friend who's here in the chat of everyone who who would probably agree slightly with you a little versus us on some of your interpretation.

But yet we can have those discussions with him because he is a he is a brother in the Lord. He has repented and put his trust in Jesus.

And so we can have those discussions. Now, with you, my bigger concern is that is that we can discuss the scriptures all night and that's fine.

But the bottom line is, is is you're a sinner. You've broken God's law. You deserve just punishment for that.

And you're going to get that when you die and you face him. Because every man's appointed wants to die and then judgment.

Hebrews 9 27. You're going to face him. And you're not going to tell God, you know, God, there wasn't enough evidence.

Because in Romans 1 20, as you probably know, it says they're without excuse. You're you're not going to have an excuse.

And at that point, you will pay the penalty for your own sin with God's wrath and his judgment poured upon you for eternity.

And so my my most important thing tonight is that you understand Jesus Christ first and foremost.

And that and that his death resurrection pay the penalty for for those who repent and believe. And I pray that that that you stop pretending about the scriptures and understand your sin against a holy, righteous and just judge.

The one that you do know exists and that you're going to be held accountable to. And I say this with all sincerity, you know.

And so, you know, as I stated in the beginning, my goal, we have two separate goals for reading the

Bible. You're reading it from a faith perspective. Right. In order to further solidify or to further enhance or to confirm,

I'm reading it from a. I want to know what is actually being said and what, you know,

I would argue there's. Thousands of biblical scholars who read it close to the view that I'm reading it from in the sense that they're trying to get an accurate understanding of what.

The writers were trying to portray. So when I read this language. I guess what you would be asking me to do is to put aside.

When I read, you know, again, read, read the letter to the

Philadelphians or that. I mean, if you read that language, I would

I would ask you to to say that if you read that in any other context, if you opened the

Koran and read something similar. Would you come to the same interpretation?

Yeah, well, I think that's you because it's the New Testament. Yeah. And so let me answer that, at least for myself and say what

I try to do in interpretation, what I teach when I when it comes to the science of hermeneutics, which is the science of interpretation, is to understand what the original author meant by what he said to his original audience.

We have to go back to that. It's called authorial intent. And that's what

I'm trying to get to when I look at scripture. So. And Chris, I don't mean this.

So before you go on, let me just if I don't even think my position is on biblical.

So if you think about it, if you were a believer back in the year 40

A .D. Right. You would have confidence that Jesus is going to return or you would be hoping that Jesus is going to return soon.

Right. Yeah. And what I'm arguing these scriptures are saying.

Yeah. And now that it didn't happen is is a problem now. Two thousand years later for the believers at the time, that was what they were hoping for.

That's what they thought was going to happen. So the language is being read from their perspective from and I think that's the proper context to read it from, not from two thousand years later, from what we hope is going to happen or what we think is a possible interpretation.

That to me, that's not the best way to read something that was written two thousand years ago to a different audience who thinks a lot differently than we do, who has different values, different ideas, speaks different languages.

These are the kind of things that you have to look at when you're reading. And that's exactly what

I teach people to do, is to do exactly that. And so what we end up seeing is that we're two thousand years removed.

I'm not trying to interpret it in the 21st century. I'm looking at the context and I can look and see that Jesus is listing things that happened in every generation.

In fact, I can look, I can look at Mark and Matthew where he will say when he's asked again, when will these things happen?

And he says, it's not for the son to know, only the father knows. Right. And people try to interpret that and say, well, somehow

Jesus in his humanity didn't know something. No, that's a Jewish idiom to say that you should be living as if any moment is the time that that this could occur at any moment.

And that's exactly what the rest of that context ends up. Absolutely. So like if you look at every one of those parables, it's about someone who's alive and the master leaves.

Right. Or like the parable about the ten bridesmaids.

Right. And they're alive when the master returns or when the brides and the groom returns.

And every one of those, they are alive when he comes back.

So another example of what these are written for the people living at the time, not someone living 2000 years later.

If the parables were accurate, they would talk about generations dying and maybe, you know, the 10th generation or the 20th generation.

He's alive. He's waiting for that person to come back. Right. OK, so let me let me you made a mistake.

I don't think purposely when it comes to parables. Right. Parables have one specific thing that is trying to teach us an illustration.

And so we don't want to take a parable and give it a meaning it doesn't have. We don't give it a meaning beyond the main purpose of it.

And so the parable that you just used doesn't fit with the purpose of that you gave it.

So which parable specifically? Well, you just. The bridesmaids or the bridesgroom returning.

Correct. So that parable says that five of them were not prepared. Right. Yeah. And so what's what's the purpose of the parable?

Is that we prepared and to be ready. Correct. So it has nothing to do with that generation.

It has to do with it has to because they were alive when he came back in every single parable.

The person who is alive when he leaves is alive when they come back. That wasn't saying be ready, be awake, be on alert.

Yeah, this is going to happen at a time within this generation. So the. Notice I want you to notice what you're doing.

You're taking a bunch of passages, slamming them together. It's called proof texting. And you're taking them out of their context and giving them a meaning that they didn't have.

The parables meaning, as you said. Is that we live a life being prepared.

That's the that's it. That's it doesn't go beyond that. So when you go beyond that, you're giving the parable a meaning it doesn't have.

And that's where you're now misinterpreting the scripture. We cannot apply a parable and give it a meaning it did not have.

The purpose of the parable, as you agreed, was that we should live and expect in life, preparing ourselves that a minute could be the moment.

That's true for every generation since Christ. But to take that and now go beyond that and say, well, that has to happen within that generation.

You've added something and you're making that something you're adding the main argument against your belief, right?

You're or you're for your unbelief. Right. The parable is not my main argument.

It's one of many pieces of evidence. Correct. And I'm not saying that you only have one argument.

I'm I'm agreeing that you're making a case for many. But the the thing you're doing, let me put it this way.

What you sort of accused us of doing is to read the

Bible with faith, looking to have it vindicate our faith. It wasn't the words you used,

I understand. But but you're almost or maybe not almost or doing the same thing just with your unbelief.

You're looking for the for the scriptures to vindicate your unbelief. And yet.

One of the things that you're doing is, as I'm pointing out, is misinterpreting scripture.

You're how did I misinterpret that? Were they alive when he came back? It has nothing to do with them being alive in the past.

That's your interpretation that it has nothing to do with. I asked you what the purpose of the parable I pointed out is that every single parable that talks about someone needing to be alert and to be ready because the

Lord will come like a thief, right? Unexpectedly, every single parable portrays the person alive or the people alive waiting as still alive.

OK, but it doesn't mean those the the leap you're making is you're saying that they speak of a specific generation.

And that's not the case. I mean, parables, it doesn't matter what generation it's showing you that within whatever generation.

Jesus is returning, whatever generation he's telling you he's going to return, he's going to be returning when you're still alive.

So, like, for example, can you go to James 5 .1? But that's an assumption.

We'll turn to James 5 .1. Yeah, James 5 .1 is another excellent example of that.

This could only apply to the people being alive at the time he's talking to. OK, James 5 .1

says, but if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all generously and without a reproach and it will be given to him.

So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, you're saying that James 1 5 only occurred was only true in James's time frame.

James 5 .1. Oh, 5 .1. Sorry. Yeah, that's OK. 5 .1

says come now, you rich weep and howl for your misery, which are coming upon you.

So am I? I guess my argument still stays the same. So you're saying that this weeping for the rich only occurs during James's lifetime and never after.

Correct. Now, there's rich people before and after. Oh, OK.

So you need to read the context of the passages to get what he's saying. Yeah. And there's nothing in this context that says it's specific to that generation that he's living among and no others.

It says in verse three, it says, you, you have hoarded wealth in the last days.

You, as in again, I'm talking to you. So there's no other generations that ever hoarded riches.

So here's where I think we're at. If you want to just interpret every verse as having absolutely no context and it's just an open letter written to anybody who happens to read it, then the

Bible becomes an absolutely meaningless document. Yeah.

Anybody can apply it to anything they want to and apply it to any generation that they feel like applying it to.

Which, ironically, is the reason why there are people right now and people 20 years ago, 30 years ago saying that Jesus was going to come and he didn't come.

And then they reevaluate and they say he's coming again. So it's led to such mass confusion because people have been reading it the way you're proposing to read it.

And it's led to a lot of disappointment because everybody thinks they're the generation that this is applying to.

What I'm trying to argue is that if you read it in context, it's being directed towards the people that the author or the writer is talking to at the time, right?

If you were reading it, you would read this in the first century as you, right?

OK, but Chris, you're doing what you are accusing us of doing. So you need to take a step back and realize you're actually guilty of what you're saying because you're reading into it a only one generation.

And yet you're admitting that, yeah, there's been people throughout prior to that, during that, and after that of the time of James.

That's before. So what you end up seeing is that you're saying this reads only for one generation.

When there's nothing in the context, it says it's only for one generation.

The fact that he says you doesn't mean it's only that generation. You're reading that in because you have a belief that you're starting with.

It's a confirmation bias you're trying to prove. You're trying to prove it's a context.

It's reading it within context. I think it's easier. I think an easier context to see is

Paul's writing. Paul is addressing letters to specific people, right?

Hold on, Chris, just for a moment. I just want to show you what you're doing. In each of these examples that you've given me, what have

I done? I've been willing to engage with the text. And what do you do every time I do that? You jump to a different text and ignore everything that I've just said.

I'll be glad to. So with each of these texts, it doesn't support your argument.

And you're just jumping from text to text to text. And that's one of the things

I want you to see is that you have to stick to a text. There's nothing in James that says it is only for the generation of James.

You even admitted it when you said there's people today who are hurt where the same thing is true.

Right? So then that is something that is not just for one generation. The fact that what

Jesus said in Matthew 24 is he has many things there that he lays out that were for,

I mean, every generation has rumors of wars, earthquakes. But you want to limit that just to one and say, see, it's a false prophecy because it had to occur at this one time frame.

Because the language limits it to that generation. No, it doesn't. The term this generation refers to the generation.

And that limits it to the generation that sees the signs that he discussed.

He says he gives all these signs and says this generation. What generation?

The generation that sees all those signs. And you're saying it had to be a first century generation.

But that doesn't that's not the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text is the generation that sees all the signs he says because they say, when's this going to occur?

He gives all these signs that occur and says this generation sees these signs. These are the ones that will end up having this happen.

So how do you interpret Matthew 16, 27, when he says that those standing here in front of him will not taste death?

OK, and then keep reading, keep reading for me. So for the son of man is going to come in glory of his father with his angels.

That's the same reference made in Matthew 24. Yeah. Keep reading. And will then recompense every man according to his deeds.

Truly, I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here talking to the apostles who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.

He's talking to the apostles who are standing there. And he tells them that truly some of you standing here will not die until you keep reading.

Keep reading, please. It's only I know it's not the transfiguration. I know what it is.

That's exactly what it is, because in every case where you have that verse, what immediately follows it?

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter, James and John and his brother and led them upon the mountain.

And what do they see? So which apostles tasted death prior to that? None of them tasted death until then.

That would be a false prophecy. No, it wouldn't. Some of those will not taste death. Okay. And they didn't taste death because they did see it.

Okay. The answer wouldn't make a prophecy for something six days later and tell people that they wouldn't be dead six days later.

Why? It doesn't make sense. Ah, there we go. That's right.

It doesn't. But it also doesn't make sense because all the apostles were alive in the book of Acts.

And it says that some of them would have had to have died. Chris, I want you to notice what you just did.

Hold on. Notice what you did. You've been arguing for context all evening. Yes, sir.

And when the context disagrees with your conclusion, you ignore the context. The context is not the transfiguration.

You're ignoring it. That's exactly what it says. It says, For the Son of Man is going to come in his glory. What is the transfiguration?

Jesus showing his glory to people who lived. Were there any angels that appeared in the transfiguration?

Well, we have people. No angels, so that doesn't fit. So, for the

Son of Man is going to come in his glory of the Father with his angels. Why is he coming?

He's already there. Coming refers to the second coming.

Your argument is that nobody sees that the people had to be alive to see his glory, correct?

And more importantly, some of those standing here will not taste death means that some did taste death before six days.

So, did all of the disciples see the transfiguration? No, three of them. Okay, so some did taste death without seeing that, correct?

Some of the disciples died prior to those six days. It says nothing about that.

You read that in. They didn't see. That's right. They didn't see. They died without seeing the transfiguration, correct?

It says, Truly, I tell you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the

Son of Man. Did Andrew, the disciple, see the transfiguration?

No. Okay, so when he died... He didn't taste death either, did he? Sure he did.

He died. And before the Son of Man? Before seeing it, yeah.

Before he saw that, yeah. Before those six days? Yeah, before he... No, not before the six days, before he saw it.

This is the thing you're doing. You keep reading something in. These were not going to see it, the glory.

Andrew didn't see the glory. Because now it sounds like you're splitting which seeing they're going to do.

No, I'm not. There's three of them that saw it. The rest of the disciples did not see it. Only three saw it.

So that is some of the disciples. And the others did not see the glory.

So how do you fit in the taste death part? Andrew died.

He's dead. Well, after the fact. Yeah, of course.

The point is that by the time of his death, he never saw the transfiguration.

Correct? Did Andrew ever...

Do we have any record that Andrew saw the transfiguration? No, he never saw it, period, according to them. Okay, correct. So the some that didn't see it are all those except for Peter, James, and John.

Only those three saw it. So those are the some that saw it. And all the others are the some that didn't see it.

But the transfiguration is the six days later is the answer to that prophecy.

That's exactly what you end up seeing. The two times that that's used, the transfiguration immediately follows.

And it's described as he comes in glory. Right? So that's exactly what you end up seeing.

The answer to your dilemma is right there in the context. And was every man repaid for their deeds?

Well, eventually every man was repaid. So now you're moving on. So now you're switching it to a future judgment.

No, I'm talking about the transfiguration. At the cross? So you're requiring that every part of this has to be fulfilled at the same exact moment.

I'm saying it's about the second coming. Like every verse that talks about the son of man coming.

You're saying that. That doesn't mean the text. It's the context because it doesn't require me to do what you're doing.

Splitting it with, well, it could be the crucifixion. It could be the transfiguration.

It could be the resurrection. It could be, right? This is what it requires you to do when you don't just focus it and look at what the context of the coming means.

It means judgment, right? No, see, here's the thing. I'm actually looking at the context because I kept reading into chapter 17.

There weren't chapters. Which isn't the context. Six days later or eight days later is another event.

That's not the context. That is the context. It's actually just a few verses or sentences later.

The verse above is the context. And when he says, truly, I tell you, he's reinforcing what happened above, right?

And we know above that every man was paid according to their deeds, right?

So that's the judgment. So you're saying I'm ignoring context. And what am I reading? The next verse.

Which is not in this setting. That's a whole separate event. Okay.

Prove that. Because it's six days later. And I gave you reasons why it doesn't make sense.

If I said some of you two will not taste death until we meet next week, would that be a great prophecy?

Do you think? Chris, Chris. Or if I said in this next generation you might not taste death until you see something.

That would be more accurate. Your whole argument is that it has to make sense to you.

It's not my whole argument. My whole argument is the verse before is about judgment.

The next verse would be about that verse. I keep answering these things in context.

You ignore it. I just don't think it's a legitimate argument. I know what your argument is.

But I think, again, it's a way to get away from this context in that some are standing here and not tasting death.

Because it's not able to be explained like the this generation verse.

It's just another version of this generation. It's another way of saying this generation.

Some of those standing here. So referring to the same group, you're saying, Chris, we have to ignore the context, right?

I'm saying you have to accept the context. OK, so the context is six days later that Jesus takes three of them up.

He's transfigured. They see his glory exactly as was prophesied.

That exactly. That's not only fits the context. It's in the context.

So is the verse above connected to the last verse or is it not?

So the verse for the son of man is going to come in glory. Twenty seven of his father with his angels and then will recompense every man according to his deeds.

Is that connected to 28 or is that absolutely separate? And now it skips subjects and goes to the transfiguration in verse 28.

Because that's what you're arguing, is that he switches topics. Or you have to argue that a judgment occurred and angels came at the transfiguration.

OK, let me let me understand. So are you saying. But my argument incorporates all of it.

I don't know. Listen, this isn't the context of the cross in any way.

Correct. Is it what this. So this can't be the context of the cross.

Is that what you're saying? I don't read anything to do with the cross. It's about verse 24.

Verse 24. Then Jesus said to his disciples, if anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross.

Right. Follow me. Personally, they need to take up. They need to follow Jesus. That's not that is not what a cross would have meant in the first off their cross.

Take up the cross in the first century. The first century, someone would pick up a cross and carry it to their own death.

Right. OK, that's the cross. It isn't following Jesus. That came many years later.

So when you argue that this following Jesus to death, that's what he's referring to.

It's at the cross. Is that what you're saying? He's not literally saying that everybody has to take a cross and be crucified by the road.

So it's saying you need to follow me. And you want to know what the context of that is.

It's the context when Peter talks about leaving family homes, everything to follow

Jesus. Right. One of Jesus commands is that you'll have your love

God more so than your family. Right. OK, so you made another leap.

You made another leap. Well, that's to ignore the immediate context.

You made another leap. Is the cross is the cross in verse 24 referring to his death when he says the disciples have to take up the cross?

It's related to what his final. Judgment is.

Yeah, he's paying the final price. But you just told me that's not a fire to mimic what he's doing.

OK, but when I said that that's the context, you told me that's not the context. So how how did

Jesus mention this? How could he have mentioned it just versus before if that's not the context?

I'm not even sure what your argument is. Your argument. I don't even know how this applies to verse 28 or 27.

All right. Because you're. Yes, context. Do you switch from verse to verse? But what

I'm asking you is, are you saying that 27? I'm not saying. Well, I said,

I said. It couldn't happen. I'm just asking you, are you saying 27 is unrelated to 28?

OK, so, Chris, I said that it related to what happened at the cross. And you told me that makes no sense because it's not in the context.

I just gave you the context again. And what you do ignored it and said it doesn't apply.

That's the context. He's applying it. He's saying it. You said that doesn't apply.

It's the context. You're ignoring the context because you don't want to believe.

So so let me let me get to the heart of the issue, Chris. The real issue is you're you're using the

Bible to try to find a way to disprove the

Bible or to prove that it is not accurate. It couldn't have been written from God. The real question

I have for you, Chris, is. Do you believe they start with this? Do you believe you're going to die one day?

Yes. OK, do you believe that you're going to face God? The Christian God?

No, I said God. The Christian God, the God that exists.

I don't know what God that is. There's lots of gods that have been proposed. You do know which

God that is because God has said that, you know, he exists. You suppress that in unrighteous.

The Trinitarian God or the Jewish God? The Jewish God is the

Trinitarian God. But Jews don't believe that their God is a Trinitarian God. You mean the rabbinic

Judaism that is a man made works based system? Even the Old Testament Judaism?

Yes, I would agree with that. Old Testament Judaism. Huh? The same ones that rejected

Jesus at the time of his crucifixion. In fact, you can even see in the Talmud that there's evidence that even in the times before Christ, they believed in a

Trinitarian God. So sorry, but yeah. That would be kind of hard to believe since the

Trinity didn't really come into being established until like the third century.

Really? So why didn't they have these? When God refers to himself in a plural, that didn't happen until the third century?

The what? When God refers to himself in a plural sense. That's the council.

That's the divine council. When he says that's not the Trinity. Who's the divine council?

When God says made in our image, is that what you're talking about? That's one of many examples.

Sure. And who is the council of multiple deities that resided with whatever the chief

God was in the ancient era. So this is, again, important to study the context.

And to understand the historical. Multiple deities, you said, correct? Multiple deities, yes.

And yet the Bible's really clear there's only one God. The Bible talks about all sorts of deities.

In fact, the first commandment would make zero sense if there weren't other deities. No, that making up false deities is not the real deity.

If I say that I'm hanging out here at this hotel with Chris, with Chris May, and I'm looking at Anthony, he's not

Chris May, is he? Me claiming he's Chris May doesn't make him Chris May. You are

Chris May. He's Anthony Castro. When you say you shall have no other

God but me, that would be a pretty kind of a lame statement to make if there was no other

God. No, no, it's not. I would be like saying you should have your wife saying you should have no other wife but me, but no other wives.

Yeah, exactly. And so there should be no one that I put in that place of God and claim that they are

God when they're not actually God. Do you believe that the ancient Israelites didn't believe in any other deity?

They had plenty of deity or people, I don't want to say deities.

Let's call it idolatry. Idolatry, yeah. Idols that they, that'd be the right word. But that's from your perspective.

Idols that they set up and called God. Even Aaron in the wilderness sets up a golden calf and says, this is the

God that took you out of Egypt. That wasn't the God that took him out of Egypt. He created an idol and it was a false worship of a false

God. And so, so here's the thing. Once again, we're at a point where you're, you're saying, oh, there's not a trinity.

And yet the Old Testament says so, but what do you have to do? You have to read something in. But it doesn't.

We don't even agree on that. It doesn't say there's a trinity. And the Jews who read the

Old Testament and the Tanakh and the Hebrew scriptures disagree as well.

So, so you're taking their scriptures and saying it absolutely says it's the trinity.

And they're telling you, no, it doesn't say that. And so now you're taking someone else's scriptures and saying,

I know. No, I'm not. I'm taking the scriptures. Right.

So, Chris. Before they were the scriptures of the Christians, they were Jewish scriptures.

So, Chris, I'm going to read something to you. In Romans 1, starting with verse 18, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who, by their unrighteousness, suppress the truth.

Because their sin, people suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made.

So they're without excuse. Every man knows God exists when they don't acknowledge him. They're suppressing the truth about him and their sin.

Which God? And God says they're without excuse. Well, this is the one true God. Because then he goes on to say, for although they knew

God, that's you, Chris. Although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him. But they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God, the immortal

God. For images resembling mortal man and birds and animals are creeping things. Therefore, God gave them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie.

And worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator who's blessed forever. This is the idols that you're talking about in the

Old Testament is because when the Israelites and others, even today, choose to not believe in the one true

God that they know exists, they always turn to idols. They always turn to false gods.

And that false God, make no mistake about it, is the one that every person looks at in the mirror, first and foremost.

Because somehow, some way, people believe that they have more knowledge than Almighty God himself.

And so they turn to those false gods. That's exactly what, and I'm trying to be as kind as possible.

I think that's a modern interpretation. I think if you talk to an ancient Canaanite or a

Philistine, or they would say that they worship their gods.

Of course, unbelievers would say that. And that's what this passage says. But that's you saying that.

That's because you are looking at it from your worldview that says there's one

God and it's the Christian God. And every other God believed in from now until eternity and from the beginning of time is a false

God and is an idol. And it's nonexistent. So what I'm telling you is that your view isn't even biblical in the sense that it's a modern evangelical interpretation that says every other

God doesn't exist except the God that we believe in. You're actually denying a supernatural worldview in some sense.

No, we're not. And we're not denying gods. The gods that we're denying, we're denying because they never existed.

Again, you're denying the supernatural world. No, we're not. We're denying the false gods.

But why are they false? Because they're the imagination of men. That's what

I'm saying about your God. But you're not the authority. But you're not God. That's the whole thing.

So when I say it, it's not true because it's your God. No, no, no.

It's because the God who exists said it. It's the God who exists that you're trying to deny that said it,

Chris. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess of Jesus Lord. Every man's appointed once to die and then to judgment.

That judgment's going to be against the creator God. You're going to face Jesus Christ himself, the one true

God. That's who you're going to face. And why do you believe in a judgment that's going to come?

The same reason why you do. Because you have the moral law written on your heart. I don't.

I just showed you plenty of scripture that says it should have happened 2 ,000 years ago. No, you read into that a conclusion.

I don't have any concern about it. Luckily, I've been able to read the scripture and interpret it.

Out of context. But the reason you do is because you're reading it.

In context, correct. You're reading it from what was intended 2 ,000 years ago and projecting it on yourself.

No, Chris. You don't have to do that. Chris, that's the whole thing. And anyone can watch this and see that what have

I done? I've read things in their context. I went back to what their original meanings were. You have not.

You have consistently read it in a 21st century understanding. Consistently ignored the context because you have a confirmation bias.

Because you want what you wish to be true. So, was the Bible, was the

New Testament written in the 1st century written to people in the 1st century?

Or the 22nd? So, it's meant for all time. It's for all time. So, Chris. There you go.

You just denied the context of what was written. No, I didn't. No, because God. How do you know it's written for people of all time?

How do you know that? So, Chris, when it says in Romans 3, none is righteous, no, not one. No one understands.

No one seeks for God. Right. The people he's talking to in the congregation. Did you know that Paul's quoting that from several thousand years earlier?

Sure, because he's projecting it as prophecy. No, because it's for all time.

That entire passage in Romans 3, he's pulling from the Old Testament from thousands of years earlier. So, here's the thing.

Because he thinks that Jesus is the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy. No, because he was the fulfillment.

So, here's the thing. And I know because we're working with that on battery power.

We're going to end the show early tonight because I'm going to lose battery pretty soon. We've got about 10 minutes left and the cord's not quite long enough.

Chris, let me just end with this and just say, I know that you wish that what you are saying is true, but it's not.

You're going to be accountable to the holy, infinitely holy, infinitely just God that does exist.

And you will be accountable to it. And you could try to say, oh, that only fits for that generation or that generation.

You're ignoring the context. We've shown that over and over. You ignore the context. You read it with a 21st century mind.

But the reality is you and I both are guilty of breaking God's law.

And all your justifications aren't going to save you. When you face the

God that exists, he will judge you based on his nature.

And you would be just as guilty as I am going to be guilty. And I'll leave you with that there are thousands and millions of gods believed to have existed since the beginning of time.

You're rejecting your belief in one God over every other God for some reason, because it's the tradition you've been brought up in.

Chris, don't make me mute you. Chris, I have been throughout the show.

I have let you say your piece. I've let you talk and I haven't interrupted. And yet every time

I try to talk, maybe it's your guilty conscience. You interrupt. OK, you keep doing that.

So I'm going to ask you not to for a moment. The reality is that there's only two religions in the world, man -made and divine.

You're trying to argue for all the man -made religions and use all those. Those are fake. They don't exist.

The fact is the only and we could do this objectively. Every man -made religion adds human effort.

Every one of them. And so the only religion that is right is the divine religion where God did all the work.

And when we look at that one, that is only seen at the cross. And you will be accountable to that God, Chris.

And that's why my heart goes out to you. And I plead with you that you stop trying to come up with ways to feel justified in your disobedience and your suppression of truth.

And accept the God that does exist and repent from trusting yourself and trust him.

Because other than that, you're going to spend eternity in a lake of fire. And I don't want that for you. But your belief is that if God doesn't do his work in somebody, they're not saved anyway, right?

Yeah, that would be true. So it's really irrelevant what someone believes anyway.

No, because God works through people so that the choices they make are exactly as he intended.

You need to come to repentance, Chris. You need to repent. But God predetermines what

I'm going to do anyway. No, you can't blame God for what you refuse to do.

You're trying to get off, but that's exactly what Romans 9 says. No, I'm just pointing out that you're a determinist.

I am not a determinist. See, what you just revealed, Chris, is that you never took the time to understand what

I believe. Go listen. I know what you believe. You're a compatibilist. You think humans have free will, but God also is sovereign and controls everything, correct?

You don't know. Nothing happens except God's will, right? So you keep arguing.

Can anything happen apart from God's will, yes or no? No. No, so then it wouldn't matter if I wanted to save myself because it wouldn't happen if it wasn't

God's will. False. Because you don't understand the nature of God. Because you don't even take the time to listen, to let me finish sentences, to understand what

I'm trying to say. Because you're so convinced or so trying to convince yourself that you're right that you're just talking right over me over and over again.

I encourage you to go back and listen. See how many times you've done that throughout the show, okay?

But the reality is if you understand the doctrine of superintending, you understand that everything you just said,

I don't believe. God is sovereign. God is in control.

Yet he works through people in such a way that the choices they make, they make those choices are exactly as God intended them to be.

So I'm not arguing as you tried to claim. But my nature doesn't allow me to choose

God, right? Unless God supernaturally brings me to faith, correct?

That's why you need to come to repentance. So I was correct in what I said. There's nothing I can do in my own will to accept

God unless he works through me, right? Nope, you're wrong. What is incorrect about what

I just said? Did I say that people have a choice, yes or no?

Yes. Okay. You just said that I said that people don't have a choice. But ultimately my choice is irrelevant if God doesn't want it, correct?

Did I say that or did you? Is that not what you believe?

No, I've said this. So I do then have free will. Half a dozen times I think I've said, you're wrong.

Okay, then I do have free will to accept God. You haven't even taken, no, you don't have a free will. You have a will that's enslaved to sin.

You have a will. It's enslaved to sin. Right, so I'll never choose

God based on my will enslaved to sin, right? Did I say that? Yeah, it's amazing.

The whole show you've been talking over me, but now you go silent. No, I'm trying to understand what you're saying.

Because you're kind of talking in a... In a biblical way.

If I try to get it what you're exactly trying to say, then...

Yeah, what I'm exactly trying to say... So my will is enslaved to sin. What I'm exactly trying to say is what

I've said several times, and I've said consistently throughout the years. God works through human beings that the choices they make are exactly as he intended them to be.

Who's making the choice? You have choices. You can come to repentance.

You refuse to. And the reason that you'll spend eternity in a lake of fire, Chris, is because you refuse.

You refuse Christ. You're trying to justify your refusal.

And that's my plea for you, is that you'd repent. Well, I would ask that you look at the scriptures and try to...

I've been doing it all night. He's giving you the scriptures. I've given you scriptures. I've given you context, and you ignore it. You have not given me correct context.

You've given me your... No, I haven't given you context that fits with your preconceived idea.

That's confirmation bias. How about we just read Romans 10, right? Starting in verse 8.

But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart. That is the word of faith that we proclaim. Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is

Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

But the scripture says, everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame. I just straight up read what scripture tells you.

You know, Chris Hough says this. No, Andrew, you didn't say it. But his actions are showing that his will is a slave to sin.

Praying the Lord will regenerate his heart. That's our prayer for you, Chris. Because you have displayed that you wish what you want, what you're claiming to be true.

You're wishing it to be true. Do you wish Christianity to be true? No, it is true.

It doesn't matter whether I wish it or not. So you don't hope it's true? No, it is true.

Whether I believe it or not. Well, I believe my worldview is true. I know, but the difference is that it's only your wishful thinking.

That's from your perspective. No. See how this kind of gets into, it sounds like it reduces to a fifth grade conversation.

Well, I know your worldview is true. No, you're wishing your worldview is true.

Because we're talking past each other. You're saying what I wish to be true, and I'm telling you what is true.

You're talking wishful thinking, and I'm talking reality. And so I made an attempt to show you evidence and to show you through your own scripture.

No, no, no, no, you made an attempt. If it's not your Jesus, I'm going to be scared.

The people who wrote the New Testament put in the mouth of Jesus that he was supposed to return in the 2nd century.

Chris, what you did was ignore context, jump from verse to verse to verse.

But see, we're going to get into, and I can say, no, you ignored context. See how we get nowhere?

And every time what I did, when I gave you the context, what did you do? No, you didn't. I don't agree with your context.

I know, so what did you do? You had to jump to other passages. Because I offered you evidence that this was for the 1st century repeatedly.

I can go through numerous verses. We didn't even touch. We barely even scratched the surface.

And then you guys went into trying to convince me that I'm going to go to hell because I don't accept your interpretation.

We got jumped right from that, from the verses. Okay, let's try this tactic.

So you said it's our interpretation. What does it mean, as Anthony read earlier, that none are righteous?

No, not one. What does that mean? How many are righteous according to your interpretation?

None. Everybody's in sin. But why do I care what Apostle Paul says? When it says all liars will have their place on Lake of Fire, what does that mean?

Why should I care what Paul says? When it says all liars will have their place on Lake of Fire, That's the part that I think when you read

Scripture, Scripture only applies to people who believe it. It doesn't matter what

Paul says. Notice the simple interpretation you don't want to give because you know what it means. And by the way, it wasn't

Paul, that was John. And what you attributed to Paul was actually

David. So we gave you two quotes. Neither of them were what you claimed. So the thing that we're seeing is you're arguing for this, yet the clear reading of Scripture says you are under God's judgment.

And you're saying, that's my interpretation. You don't want to answer it because you know that if you answer it, that says you, as someone who has told lies, is under God's judgment and will suffer the second death.

That's what it says. It's clear. Chris, you said earlier, when I asked you the question, if everything was answered to your satisfaction, would you repent and believe?

Would you bow your knee and repent and believe? You said no. It's clear that it's not about the interpretation of Scripture.

It's you're in rebellion against God. That's all it comes down to, is you're in rebellion against God.

And so you don't want to see the truth about God because you don't want to see the truth about God. That's all it comes down to.

You refuse to do so. And Scripture says it's because you enjoy your sin and don't want to come to repentance.

So, you know, all I can say is, Chris, I'm praying for you.

I know a lot of people have been praying for you in the chat here because we don't desire to see you in the lake of fire for eternity.

And, yeah, I don't know what else to say. I mean, Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for sin for those who repent and believe.

That is the gospel presentation. That is the gospel message right there. And He calls all men to repent and believe.

He calls you to repent and believe. It's not about the Scriptures you're arguing over.

It's about your sin against Almighty God. That's all it comes down to. And you're going to realize that the words that we're repeating from Scripture are true.

I pray you do it on this side and not when you're facing Him on your way to hell. Yeah. And unfortunately, we do have to close with that because I only have about 5 % battery left.

What do you got? I got 19. We could switch to your computer for a few minutes. So we may do that.

But let me get to and see if we have any of the comments here that were. Can I just say

I appreciate you guys taking the time to talk with me. No, we appreciate it.

Look, Chris, I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate your desire to want to try to show us from your study what you believe to be true.

But I do want to. I didn't expect it would go anywhere. I mean, I wasn't under any pretense that you guys would look at it from any point of view.

OK, hold on. We're going to switch over to Anthony's. So don't get unmuted.

I should be out. OK, so we're on your. You got to get out of yours. OK, I'm muted.

You just shut yours down. OK, that that should be better.

Y 'all can hear us, right? Yeah, you sound pretty good. OK, but we can't hear. It's because this is down.

There we go. And I should be able to hear. Can you hear me? Yeah, there we go. OK, good. Even I just computer.

Anthony forgets to use his mic. I am just brilliant with technology. I just want you all to know that.

Thank you for pointing that out. OK, I can run a dental office like nobody's business. I can't turn on a computer.

I don't get it. So so, you know, I mean, Chris, I. The thing that I would say to you is.

I really, I really ask that you would find a extension.

Yeah, I don't know if I have one. I'd ask you to consider what the scriptures actually say.

The as Anthony said at the beginning, it's it's not an evidence issue. None of us have an evidence issue.

We have a sin issue. And none of us want to be accountable to God.

None of us want the real God that does exist to to exist. We don't want to. We don't have to be accountable.

But he he does exist. And because of that, we are accountable. And I'm concerned with where you'll spend eternity.

You know, I've tried to answer your questions within the context that you gave them without jumping around.

It's one of the things that those who are regulars to the show, they know that. I always point out when someone has to when you answer someone's question in a in a specific passage and they jump to another.

That's the evidence that they're not really. You know that they can't answer that.

Yes, I don't I don't think that's in any way a fair representation of what occurred, because I'll be glad to spend an hour on one passage if you'd like to.

Yeah, well, just enough. It wouldn't matter because you would deny the context of the passage.

And the reason that I went to other passages is to try to give you some context so that.

You can kind of see where the New Testament writers are coming from, and I don't think you're seeing that context, but.

Well, I don't want to get back into. Yeah, but I've given you the context and I even gave.

So like when you interpret this generation as any generation that tells me.

Look at what you just did. You just you just said something I didn't say. This generation refers to the generation that saw the signs that he just spoke of.

Right. Which was century, which is not the first century, because the overwhelming evidence is that this is talking about the first century.

It's not really debated, even among academic and biblical scholars.

It's not really debated that he's talking about the first century and yet might be debated in evangelical discussions.

It really isn't. You're saying it's it's not debated yet. That applies to Jerusalem and the events leading up.

It really isn't in academic. So are you telling me there's there's never been any earthquakes since 70

AD? There's there's been earthquakes throughout the history of wars.

Sure. So the things that happened have happened in every generation.

So what you're saying is that Jesus just made a prediction that that could apply at any time to anyone, anywhere in any generation.

Sorry about that. Anthony, Anthony controls. He I'm good at this stuff.

I don't know what he was doing. So no idea. So what I was saying is. So, yeah, it's exactly what the context says to to live as if every generation it's possible.

And when it says referring to the apostles, right, who are standing there?

No, no. It's just a universal you, whoever you want you to be. So so I've been really consistent and it makes me concerned that you maybe haven't.

And then we explain two hours how you haven't been listening. The generation that see the signs that he refers to.

We don't know what generation that is. It couldn't be any other if he's saying you to the apostles.

Right. If the apostles have to see the things that are occurring, then it has to be that generation.

Chris, are you a an American citizen? Yes. Does the

Constitution and Bill of Rights, do they apply to you as an American citizen? Yes.

Yet you were not alive during the time of the writing. That has nothing to do with the. But it speaks of it speaks of the rights of the of people.

If we had a passage about George Washington talking to his troops and he said, you will be doing this, you will be doing that.

We would know he's talking to his troops at the time that he was. We take it, Chris.

If we take your argument, the Constitution can only apply to those who who were. That is not your.

That's not the argument. The argument is the context of when these events occur.

It has nothing to do. Does it? When did the events of the Constitution occur?

Were you alive? Because if not, it doesn't apply to you. And if you say it does apply to you, then you just made my argument.

So which is it? Are you going to say the Constitution doesn't apply to you?

Are you going to realize that people can speak throughout time to generations afterwards?

So the specific context of what said is that you will see these things be alert because these things will be occurring.

In fact, there's a verse in Luke where it says, lift your heads up. When you see these things occurring, right, referring again to the disciples, the first generation followers of Jesus who are listening to this discourse that is occurring, just like the disciples are in front of him when he says.

Surely, some of you will not taste death before you see the Son of Man come, right?

It's again, context. He's talking to a specific group of people, not to just any person who's reading the book.

He's saying you, as in the people standing here, will not taste death until these things occur.

Right. And I believe for the audience to watch or listen, notice how he never answered my question.

He went off saying something else. Because your question, it's a non sequitur.

It's not the same thing. Your argument's a non sequitur. You're asking whether laws apply to a nation hundreds or years after.

That's your question. You're saying that people can't speak. It's not being addressed to a specific group of people.

It's a document. But you're saying that people can't speak to other generations.

That's your whole argument. And the Constitution doesn't have a time frame.

It doesn't say this generation. It's not giving. James doesn't have a time frame.

You inserted it. Well, could rich people be fattened for the day of slaughter that he's talking to if they were dead 2 ,000 years later?

Say that again. He says that the rich people that he's talking to will be fattened for the day of slaughter.

James says this. Yes. And you admitted that the same thing is true today.

We're not the people he was talking to. He was talking to the people in the first century who were reading.

You're saying he's only speaking to the people of the first century because he wrote it at that time, right? Well, when you give indications that you're coming soon, coming soon can't be 2 ,000 years later.

Notice he just ignored the question again and answered something else. No, because, again, the context gives a time reference to it.

It doesn't. James does not give a time reference. Nowhere does James give a time reference. You're inserting one because you wish it to be true.

Therefore, if I keep your argument, the Constitution doesn't apply to you. It can't because you didn't live during the time of those writings.

You're you. You are not working with a consistent standard. If you can't be consistent, then you're wrong.

Right. And that's why. Look, we're taking the time, Chris, because I care about your soul. I care where you spend eternity.

And that's the most important thing. And I plead with you to repent. And look, we can we can.

You're more than welcome to come on. This show is always. I know there was someone who was in the background. Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to get to him in time before he dropped off.

But the thing is, I mean, you can come in any any time, Chris.

But I do care where you spend eternity. OK, and I know there's some other other topics that came in.

Some questions came in. We got it. We got to answer before we close out in six minutes, five minutes.

But, Chris. I really think you're you're reading into Scripture what you wish it said so that you could feel better about your rejection of this.

I'm reading Scripture and I'm taking the language that it's saying and I'm taking it.

Actually, I think I'm actually taking the language seriously in the sense that I'm actually taking it for what it's saying.

When it says he's at the door, when it says the Lord's coming is near.

I don't read that 2000 years and going later. If someone is at the door, that means they're close.

Right. And that said repeatedly throughout. And yet when I asked you about some of the parables you argued, it's the fact that we should be living as if any moment is the moment.

Sure. Exactly the exact thing he's saying there. So you're you're then saying, oh, because he says some we should be living expectantly.

It has to be now. There's nothing that has to be within the generation because he gave that time frame.

That's not what he said. You're you're saying surely this generation will not pass away until it says that.

I pointed out, you know, we looked at the passage with the transfiguration. It answers it, which isn't a correct application to it.

So that's your interpretation of it. I don't agree. No, I did. All I do is read. That's all.

You read the next verse is after. Yeah, I read the next verse is after. Which was an attempt to avoid having to explain why

Jesus would have said to his disciples. Chris, stop talking. Stop speaking over when

I read the verses after when you had a problem with that. You said, oh, that has nothing to do with the cross.

All I do is read the verses before. That's called context. I read the verses before I read the verses after.

What do you have to do? You have to ignore the before and after and accept what you were saying. Oh, only this applies.

That's out of context. What were you going to say? So John 3, 18 says whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God.

What does that mean? I don't know, but it has nothing to do with figuring out if Jesus was going to return in the first century or not.

That's what I'm asking. I'm asking about Scripture in general. You're giving apologetic.

No, we asked you, what does it mean? What does it mean? Read it again. Whoever believes in him is not condemned.

That's Jesus by the context of John 3. But whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God.

What does it mean? Whoever doesn't believe will face judgment. Believe in who?

Jesus. Jesus Christ. That's right. That's you, right? That you are condemned already because you are not believing in the name of the only son of God.

And he calls you to repent and believe the way he does every man and woman. He calls you to repent and believe that you can be saved.

The problem is that requires me to believe that that verse has any relevance to me.

Well, it does. That it has any relevance to anybody other than just being a very interesting verse in a book written several thousand years ago.

I find it fascinating. It's interesting because it's a study of what people believed.

So, Chris, it actually. But it doesn't apply to me. I don't really have any interest in it.

It does apply to you whether you accept it or not. But that's your belief. No, that's actually what the verse says.

And that's what God says. So that's what the verse says, which is your belief, what the verse says. No, actually, you you agreed with that belief.

That's the thing. Anthony asked you what you what it says. Sure, I can interpret the verse, but not apply it or take it in any sense that it applies to me.

You're applying it to yourself and to other people. It's a verse written by some unknown writer.

Thousand years ago, writing a verse. Yeah, so that's what it is.

I mean, but you recognize you've been arguing scripture for two hours. Right. And sure. I'll do a proper interpretation.

You guys are discussing interpretation here. I give you a verse that you got the interpretation right.

You're right. You're condemned. Right. And so we're telling you, you need to repent because you you are right about that verse.

That verse is very clear. And there's a lot of verses in the Bible that are very clear. Like no one is good. No, not one.

Which you heard that every man's appointed wants to die. And then the judgment, which you heard. And these are very clear verses.

And we repent and believes will be saved. You heard that Romans 10. So, you know, all we can do is is is point out to you your hypocrisy in the two hours tonight.

And I know you I know you're well intentions. Right. I get it. You're you're fighting. Why is that hypocrisy?

So you're reading a verse that you think applies to me and everybody else.

It says whoever believes. And I'm trying to interpret what I think is the intention of the writers.

I don't get how the two even connect. It's OK. One is a theological problem.

The other is. Yeah. So if I go just a few verses, few verses earlier to verse 15, it says that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send his son to the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already. Because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God.

I mean, the context is pretty clear there. And that is applying. Jesus came into the world.

To show himself to to literally anybody and everybody, and that it says whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.

That that is everybody in one of two categories. So here's my honest assessment of that is, you know, you guys like if you've studied advertisement and they have a type called emotional appeal, right?

This is what I put this into a category of. You're going to be condemned to eternal hell damnation if you don't repent and accept the

God that we believe in. That's not a good argument to a nonbeliever. It's it's more.

That's a hey, you better believe because X or Y or Z is going to happen.

That's not evidence based. People that want to determine if something is true look for evidence context.

So it would be better off actually going and studying verses with people who are nonbelievers like me rather than just telling them

I don't repent that they're going to. And that gives me a clue as to when

I do try to go through the verses and then we get stuck and we say, well, I don't agree with that interpretation.

And I'm not saying my interpretation is always correct, but we get stuck on there.

Then it goes immediately to the. Well, if you don't agree, remember, listen to these verses.

Right. But I don't take those verses to have any meaning beyond just being interesting verses written by somebody who believed or maybe not even in the things that you.

OK, Chris, Chris, you argued we're making an emotional appeal. We have scripture.

We've done it in context. What have you done said you go, well, that doesn't make sense. You're the one doing the emotional.

You're the one going. Well, it has to make sense to me. It doesn't know. It doesn't have to make sense to me.

It has to make sense. But that's been your argument. Commonly understood. It doesn't matter.

Look, if everybody agrees, they can still be wrong. Lots of people agreed in Nazi Germany that killing 11 million people was the right thing to do.

They were wrong. So it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or if it makes sense to the common number of people.

It matters whether it's right. What I've done is given you context. I followed the rules of interpretation.

And what have you done? You ignore it. You jump somewhere else. You've constantly done that. And that's how you characterized it.

And that's not accurate. No, that's actually what happened. You can go back and rewatch, Chris.

Watch how many times you stayed in one passage and who jumped to the other passages. You can rewatch this and see it was you.

And it was you every time I answered your arguments. What did you do?

Well, what about this? What about that? I didn't have to do that. Why? Because I could stay in the context of any passage you give me.

I can stay in the context. And I can answer that. You ignore that and go, well, that doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. It matters whether it's true. You ignore the truth for what makes sense to you.

And then you jump other places. You do that because you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

And I care for your soul, Chris. I don't want to see you spend eternity in a lake of fire. As Anthony just read to you, you are condemned.

Already. You're condemned. And the question is, will you repent? And my plea to you,

I'm begging you that you repent. And I know you believe that you have studied this and you're well -researched.

I get it. Who pierced Jesus? Say again?

Who pierced Jesus? It would have been the Romans. Okay. So if Jesus says those people will see him coming.

Could they be dead and see him coming? See, this is the thing.

And I think you've for so long, you guys have interpreted these passages the way that you've had to do it.

That it's that almost just what you would interpret any other thing the way

I do. OK, you interpret for some reason another way, because it has to be that way.

So, folks, we're going to do is we're we're meeting Chris because of the fact that he constantly speaks over.

You notice. And you can see the consistent pattern. OK, that we try to talk and he just speaks over.

And interrupts and then changes topics because he doesn't like the topic. OK, and so we

I know we have some other other comments that we have there that we have to get to. But, Chris, I muted you because of the fact that you you've been consistent in this behavior.

And it's a behavior that shows that you don't want the answers. You don't want to hear you every time

I try to say something. It's just you cut in, go back and relisten and see how often I've done that to you and how often you've done that to me.

You can say, oh, that's your interpretation. All you want. The evidence is there. I do thank you for coming in.

I encourage you if you want to come back more than welcome to come back another time. But we do have a couple of other questions that we need to get through.

And I encourage people to be praying for Chris. Yeah, I do want to read this one last verse for Chris, because some people have have posted it for him.

And it's one that I thought about as well. First Corinthians one in verse 17 and 18. For Christ not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel and not with words of eloquent wisdom.

Lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power for the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing.

But to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written,

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart. And so and so when we when we read this passage,

Chris, you know, I want to give one more just warning to you. The reason why you're not understanding this is because you you are lost.

And in you, you believe that what we are saying is folly because you are perishing.

That is why you do not understand. And that, as I said early on in the show and others have have mentioned as well, is that lest you repent, you can't understand the

Bible anyway. Other than what God chooses to open your eyes to. And it sounds like you have some you have a knowledge of some of the verses we've given you, which will hold you even to a higher accountability when you face him one day.

And so, again, we plead with you, repent and put your trust in him. And the

Bible will come alive at that point to you. But but until then, yeah, I expected to hear everything

I have from you in the last two hours because that's exactly what the Bible says is going to happen. And I did

I did the exact same thing you did years ago when I fought with people about the Bible until God opened my eyes as well.

And that was through my knowledge of sin and repentance and faith. The same thing that we're telling you.

It's about your sin that's that's holding you back. And he commands you to repent. Yeah.

So let me just as a final thing. Since this put this up, where is it?

Jason had said, Andrew and Chris, your patience is outstanding. And I would agree with that.

I think that I appreciate you, Chris, the manner in which we had the discussion.

It wasn't something where it was, I mean, obviously argumentative because we both disagreed and arguments are not bad.

You made arguments. I made arguments. That's fine. But I didn't think there was an overwhelming amount of name calling or or belittling or anything like that.

And I appreciate that. So thank you for Chris. Yeah, it's good discussion. Yeah. So so,

Chris, I'm gonna let you say anything you want to say, even though we're going over time. And for folks, you mean Anthony time?

Yeah. Whenever we go over the two hour mark, we call that Anthony time. For those who don't know the history, when he would host and I was gone, he would always go longer.

But we try not to do that. But we haven't even gotten to our sponsors yet. But, Chris, I want to give you a last chance to have your last words before I put you backstage so we can answer some other questions.

Yeah, I just say I appreciate you giving me the time to come on and talk. Yeah, I enjoyed having the time to talk.

And I agree. I don't I don't take things personal or so I'm not easily offended.

You know, I actually enjoy when people give their honest opinion and it doesn't offend me when you guys tell me

I'm damn to hell and not at all. It's good.

I appreciate it. Just enjoy the conversation. Yeah. And we enjoyed it, too. And just to be clear,

I'm not condemning you to hell or damn you to hell. I'm just telling you what Christ's word says. That's right. So.

Yeah. Yeah. So thanks, Chris. I'm gonna put you back. Thank you. Thank you. And look at this.

KT is saying my pillow, my pillow. So, yeah, we should we should give a quick word to our sponsor here.

My pillow trying to look. Oh, we're going to go to this one. So if you want to get yourself my pillow, just go to my pillow dot com.

Use promo code SFE. We're obviously you can see we're traveling. I have my my my pillow.

You bring yours. I forgot mine. OK. I even. OK. So my bride brought the mini iPad.

It's a it's a roll and go, I think, is what they call pillow. We just got it where you put it on top of your hotel pillow so you can kind of get the my pillow on the on the one on top.

And that's been working well. But the nice thing is it rolls up really small. So I've been enjoying that.

I also recently like for this trip, it's worked well as I got. They have a pillow case for their my pillow where you can roll it up like the vacuum bag that I use.

Oh, yeah, that's cool. So that now I have that. So that works well. So if you want to if you want to get that up, did

I click the wrong thing? Where's the you can follow me on Twitter. That's what that one says.

Whereas I always thought you were putting yourself in a shameless. There we go. There we go. My pillow called 1 -800 -873 -0176.

That's 800 -873 -0176 or go to my pillow dot com and use promo code

SFE. That's to get yourself a good my pillow. So let's deal with some of the we had some questions that came up.

All right. So early on, Stan asked the question and I don't want us to end. I'm going to just tell you we're going to end with a couple of of testimonies of some evangelism that we did this week.

They're really cool. But Stan asked pre -trip or post -trip rapture, which is stronger scripturally scriptural support and historical support.

I think I'm going to argue pre -trip. That's the position I hold, too. I think that when we get into some of the minutia of that, it's just hard to tell.

It's I think there's a lot of people that make different arguments and good arguments on either side.

Every system system has some strengths and weaknesses. You have to recognize that. And so I think that what

I see historically through Scripture and what I see in Scripture, I think that God will take his people out of the world before he brings the tribulation on.

That's my belief. You know, I can look in Scripture and see some arguments for it. But, yeah,

I see the people that make arguments against any comments you have. And I mean, well, no, it is to the degree.

Other than a preach pre -trip rapture and pre -meal. Right. So I just don't see it any other way.

Actually, you know, Anthony's becoming very much an end times kind of guy. You guys hear how much times he mentions post meal.

I'm just saying, you know, I love my brothers. I act like I'm post meal in life.

I just know the Bible really teaches in the end. You're post meal in practice, pre -meal in theology.

That's the way to state it. That's a great way to put it out there.

All right. So you grab some of these comments while we go through some of them. Yeah, I want to bring this one up earlier.

KT and Jesus said I didn't like they were using the wrong dating system. I'm sticking with BC and AD, not

BC. You know, the funny thing is, is even with the before common era and after common era.

You know what the common era still references? Christ. Christ. Yeah. And that's what's the difference.

That's actually the way the Jewish people would do it. The Jewish people would refer to BCE being before the common era and AC after the common era because they don't want to mention

Christ. But you're right. It's still back. It still comes back to that. So, yeah, I find it amusing.

OK, so let's see. Next one. Jason Cave said maybe eventually ask him what our purpose on earth today is and what happens when we die.

Well, we kind of got to that. Kind of. Yeah. I guess maybe we could have asked that. So Jason started. We didn't ask that in time.

Yeah. No, it is always interesting, though. Why does an atheist who thinks he's going to just, you know, turn into dirt and just disappear, spend over two hours arguing with a

Christian about the Bible? And for more than he doesn't believe in. He's been studying this for a while. Yeah. Yeah. It's really it's really it's puzzling to me.

Other than a biblical perspective. Right. He knows God exists. He's doing everything he can to suppress the truth about him.

And that's actually the evidence that he's that he knows God exists as suppressing. That's the evidence.

That's the evidence. He'll spend two hours trying to justify his unbelief. Yeah, that's that's right.

So. And it's not like the president hasn't been said. Right. I mean, Adam and Eve walked with God and still decided that they thought they could hide after they sinned.

You just had to go back to Genesis. Of course I did. So next one,

Captain Black Eagle. Keep in mind, Josephus is neither a believer or a Jew. He wanted to be a Roman. Yes.

Josephus was a Jewish historian. He was he was born Jewish, but he was hired by the

Romans to be able to work for them. So you keep in mind that he was writing the

Jewish record, but writing it for the Romans. So. Yep.

So Kevin Schaefer, this is very similar to what we just answered. But yeah, why waste your time justifying your unbelief if it isn't true?

You'd think they would just go find a hobby. I think his conscience is telling him he'll be accountable to God.

And it's kind of what we just talked about here. Hey, let me let me give a shout out for Kevin. Kevin actually emailed me.

I don't want to get into details email because I don't have the liberty to do it. But just a rough situation he's going through.

So let me just ask you guys all to be praying for him, for his family. But it was kind of funny because, you know, you you know how

I am. I gave him my phone number and said, hey, let's call and talk. And he was like, I think his email said so.

Like, yeah, I'm a little bit like starstruck with that. That's like John MacArthur calling and saying, hey, give me a call.

Like, no, it's not like John MacArthur. But but, yeah,

I mean, it's it's the thing. Look, the reality is, is that, you know, one of the things I got to talk to someone recently who met

John MacArthur and was amazed to have down to earth he is. Because guess what?

John MacArthur, me, Anthony, we're just human beings. There's nothing special about us.

You do believe that, right? I'm just checking, just checking. I am Italian. That's kind of special. Actually, I'm a bigger star.

It's clear that I have much more light shining off my head than you do. Yeah. So, well, I could go like that.

Oh, you are losing a lot. Yeah, I am. I am. Look at that. This is bad. Yeah. So but no,

I appreciate Kevin. And, you know, I do appreciate people that reach out to share with us, you know, what's going on in their life and where they need prayer.

So so you can you can contact us if you want. Info at Striving for Eternity dot com.

Info at Striving for Eternity dot com. All right. So let's get into this. There's one more. Yeah.

I'd say the most obvious logic is that the book of Revelation was written before the temple. Things that were are and will be are the contents of the book.

Yet no mention of 70 AD. Yeah. And he kind of mentioned that when he was in. Yeah. So we've been down in Orlando and you could check to see if there's any other good comments.

But we were down here in Orlando. And one of the things that Anthony and I do, well, most nights we looks like we won't have time tonight.

We go down to that down there. And then you can see behind us and we go in the hot tub and we sit in the hot tub for hours.

But what we're really doing is evangelizing. And so what I do is encourage you guys with some some of the evangelism we've been doing, because the neat thing of being at a resort like this is that people come in the hot tub and it's like they're there for 30, 40 minutes.

But we're there for hours just talking to one. They leave. Someone else comes in. So it's a really difficult job to sit in a hot tub for hours.

It's just it's difficult to evangelize. But but all but all seriousness,

I mean, it is it is a blast to do. Let's let's talk about the Catholic couple to start. That was I mean, then we'll talk to either or whichever

Orthodox they were. But so we had a couple. He was 74.

She was 72. Roman Catholic. Granted, I will admit, just admitting they were taught.

Anthony and this guy were talking football. A lot of football. I got up and left, but I came back and Anthony got to the gospel meeting where they're at sometimes.

And she was amazing because the wife did not. When we start talking about the gospel, she wanted nothing to do with that.

Even though she came over being like, oh, you guys are talking football. She wanted to talk to you football over the gospel.

She did. And one of the things that was that he said to me after speaking to you and I came back and you handed the conversation over to me was he had told me that this conversation was blowing his mind, that he was going to have more talks with his wife overnight.

I've been looking for him at the poolside, and I think you have to see if we can run into him again.

And we haven't, but they might have left by now. But it was a neat conversation. I think you had more of the conversation to start.

So, yeah, to start with, I mean, you know, so as we do evangelism training around the country, my favorite question to start off with is, you know, if you die today, what do you think would happen to you?

Heaven or hell? And that's what I do with them. And we're we're talking football for a little bit. And I just say, hey, I got a question for you off the wall.

Guys, you know that I don't follow football, right? You're an Ohio State fan.

He was a Michigan fan. All I know is you two were not supposed to be talking. I know. The easiest way to get a conversation with a

Michigan fan is to make fun of Michigan football and then tell me you're from Ohio State. And usually if you do with a smile, people just kind of laugh and then they'll talk to you.

It was a great opening. I noticed he had a big mug with an M on it. You were like, you're a

Michigan fan. And once you said you're from Ohio, he's like, you're not an Ohio State fan, are you?

People either love Ohio State or they hate them. And that's all you come across in places like this. But yeah, we had a great conversation with him and multiple times he said that it was it was a mind blowing.

And a lot of times he said that just sounds that's so true. That's so true. And yeah. And because what you consistently find with Catholics is they just don't know much about.

And he admitted that his name, by the way, to pray for his name was Doug. Doug. I don't remember Cindy. Cindy.

OK, so be praying for them. Then last night. Well, actually, before last night, let's get into it.

You guys had before I came down, you guys had you and Pastor Casey were there talking with a couple that were

Orthodox. Yeah. And it was kind of interesting. I mean, I was not in that conversation.

I came in and followed up on a secondary conversation with the guy who was listening to you guys talk.

Notice how I do all the dirty work and Angie just kind of comes in and picks up the conversation. No, no, no. I picked up a totally different conversation.

We're talking textual criticism and immigration. Yeah, it was an interesting one. But you were having a conversation with the guy whose his wife clearly wanted nothing to do with the conversation.

She was actually arguing every time you kind of redirected to her. She was like, my English, not so good.

But they were Orthodox. And that was an interesting conversation as I came in. Well, I mean, what started it was

I heard I overheard while I was talking to one gentleman witnessing to him. He and his wife came in and we're talking to another guy, just small talk.

And he said something about my parish. So so as soon as this conversation ended, I turned and said, hey, what are you talking about?

Your parish, you like a pastor or something? And of course, I knew when you say parish, it doesn't mean, you know,

Christianity. Yeah. And it's either Catholic or Orthodox. And of course, he was he was

Orthodox. But he would say he wasn't an Eastern or he wasn't a Greek Orthodox. He started Greek Orthodox and went to some other

Eastern Orthodox. I cannot remember what it was. And so we just we just started talking about what the gospel was and what it isn't.

I asked him the same question. You die today. Would you go to heaven or hell? And his question is his answer was about Jesus and works as it typically is.

A lot of works. Oh, a lot of works. He kept going to the sacraments over and over and over again, especially.

I mean, he could not let go of the we go every week because we're getting

Jesus in us. Yeah. Right. The whole Eucharist thing placing such an importance on it.

Yeah. To which I kept responding. I'm like, you know, Jesus was the final priest. Jesus was the final sacrifice and he sacrificed himself as himself, as the priest and the final sacrifice.

And it's that we don't need priests anymore. We don't need sacrifice anymore. And that what happens in the altar every week is a re -sacrifice of Christ.

Yeah. And so it was it was interesting. And, yeah, every time we turn to his wife. What was interesting is every time she answered, she would just throw something out there.

It's all about the blood of Jesus. So I had no idea where she was coming from.

He was obviously the spokesman. He was dead wrong. But they got the gospel clearly. Yeah. By the time they walked away.

It was interesting because as you kept hammering it, you could see he was he started getting a little bit uncomfortable.

Like he couldn't answer. And he's like, OK, time to get up. And so we ended up having a discussion with the guy who was listening to the two of you go back and forth.

And he was kind of itching to talk about things. It was kind of funny because he came in saying they were talking how he had gone to school and wrote papers on religion.

And he wrote papers on the fact that the Bible is the most rewritten book in history.

So it's kind of like it's kind of one of those things when when I'm talking to somebody and they bring up evolution,

I'm like, like this is the one area study for me. And it happens all the time where we're together.

We're witnessing to people. And then somebody brings up textual criticism. I'm like, you have no idea who you are talking to right now.

And I just smile and I just turn around. I shut my mouth. I just let you go to work. Yeah. And the guy the guy at the end where he was so proud that he wrote this paper and no one could answer him.

And I start getting into explaining the manuscript evidence that we have. And and he's like, can we talk immigration?

So I let him talk immigration for 20 minutes. And it said, OK, we talked about it. Can we get back to what you had said?

And yeah, but I think one of the neat conversations was last night. You and you and I just happen to be hanging out.

We're sitting downstairs and a guy comes by. And where we were sitting is an area where it was because they closed the hot tub.

We're too late. We had been you know, it was Wednesday night. We were at church.

Dr. Special was teaching on evangelism. We came home. It was too late really to get in the hot tub.

So we're just kind of hanging out outside the area. And a guy had asked us, hey, can you smoke there? He want a cigar.

And so he comes over and as he said, hey, you can smoke there. OK, he goes in to go get his cigar.

And Anthony says, make sure you ask him about Islam. And now I had been I was in the gym running and I can oversee where the pool area is.

And I saw a woman in, you know, she was fully dressed in in a in a jeep.

Yeah, I'm trying. Yeah. The other night I but a jeep forgot the name. But she's dressed in that.

I thought this was the guy I saw with her. And Anthony goes, that's the guy that was with the woman that's dressed that way.

So I went, ah, OK. So we we knew both of us knew exactly how we were going to get into this conversation.

And he comes over with his cigar. He starts smoking. And, you know, he mentions, you know, he's asking

Anthony, what is what is he doing? He says, well, I'm a dentist by trade. He asked what I do. I said, well,

I travel and I speak on Christianity. And he goes, oh, I used to argue with Christians all the time when I used to be an atheist.

I said, oh, you used to be an atheist. What are you now? And he goes, well, I believe in Islam.

He says, you know, I studied these different religions. There was no answer that could be made against Islam.

So I said, oh, what's your best argument then for Islam? And he goes, what is it you guys believe? Why are you

Christians? Totally not answering the question.

I will admit and I said this to you, I personally believe his wife who memorized the

Koran in Arabic. I think he might have become a Muslim because of the girl. I'm just a theory.

I can't prove it. But he never gave us an argument that proved that Islam was like completely unanswerable.

You had to be able to believe in it. In fact, we gave him a lot of answers of why Islam was wrong.

It was this was a funny part. Right. I said to him, well, you know, the reason he said, well, why don't

I believe the Koran? I said, well, it has contradictions, definitional contradictions. I said, in fact, one example would be that it believes the

Koran teaches that we Christians believe in the Trinity being the father, the mother and the son that we worship

Mary as God. He goes, oh, no, Koran doesn't teach that. I said, yes, it does. And I can't remember the exact surah and verse.

And I said, it's either five or six. And I think you looked it up. And it was 573.

And so but he goes, let me call my wife. She's memorized the Koran in Arabic. And so he calls his wife and she says, oh, yes.

And she gives the verse and says, yes, it does say that. So I'm like, there you go.

We got into a great discussion. He actually said, I wish you guys lived lived in Houston so I could continue the conversation.

I gave him my contact. That was a wonderful conversation. Unfortunately, it didn't end in him repenting.

But your thoughts? Well, the most interesting one is is one of his arguments for Allah being the true

God is that he's both merciful and just. Yeah, we talk about that. That's right. And and we pointed out to him that, no, no, your

God can't be both merciful and just in because people either go to heaven without having their sins paid for or people go to hell having their sins paid for.

So there's so their God is either merciful or just with different people. And we said

Christianity, God is merciful and just at the exact same time.

Always the nature of our God never changes. His God's nature is it changes one or the other in front of the other.

His God is either just or merciful, but can't be both. Yeah, it's a double minded

God, essentially. And so he was stumped on that one after we explained it thoroughly to him because it took a few times.

That was a big one. And of course, he acknowledged that the gospel of Islam was the gospel of works over and over again, over and over again.

And you kept pointing out there's only two religions in the world, one that's divine, one that's human, one that is of God, one is of works.

And and so there's no doubt that he walked away from that conversation with things to think about.

And so we can only pray that God changes his heart and his wife's heart. Yeah. And I gave him my contact information.

We pray that he'll reach out to me. The other couple I think we were looking for the Catholic couple because he didn't have a phone.

You know, your son was smarter than me. We both said your son's a different generation, right?

Because I'm like, yeah, we didn't have a way. I didn't have business card with me. I didn't have a way to give him my contact information. And Anthony's son goes, why didn't you just get his phone number?

Duh, because I didn't think of it. Yeah, right. But but they, you know, even the

Catholic couple, he was saying, we're gonna be talking about this all night. And she was like, yeah, no, we're not. But but hopefully this guy,

K .H .A .L. Khalid, it was his his name,

Mohammed Khalid. So pray for him. But hopefully he reaches out to me.

We told him I told him I'd give him a copy of my both my books and sign them because we are talking some textual criticism because he believed that the

Bible's been edited. We went through that with him as well. But in the back of what do we what do they believe?

I told him that in the back of that is a chapter or an epilogue that talks about the uniqueness of Christianity, which makes

Christian unique from any other world religion. And so he really wants to read that.

And that's really what we talked about with the fact that God is, you know, any man made religion.

God can't be just and merciful. But in the divine religion, God is just and merciful because God paid the full weight of sin, the full punishment of it himself.

Now he can offer us mercy. That's the same mercy, by the way, folks. We pray for Chris and hope that he would come to repentance and experience.

That's right. So I wanted to bring this up and there's others in here. Drew, Drew is throwing some some shade over to Ohio State's here.

You're really lucky that Ohio State's blew the game in the end and missed the kick because they kicked the butts of Georgia and Georgia did not deserve to win that game.

Are you saying that even though they played well, Ohio just fails in the end?

This game they did, and they did against Michigan, too, unfortunately. It was a bad coaching both both games.

OK, are you saying that you being in a person from Ohio? Yeah. Then we get on the tennis court and play a best out of five.

You're going to do well at the beginning but fail at the end. I will win. I'm not worried.

The question is, will you admit that you were a little bit surprised that I got to certain balls and played as well as I did?

Yeah, I was surprised. I thought I was going to like literally decimate you. And I only decimated you like 95 percent of the way.

I was I was impressed with that part. But no, it was good. We're going to get out there.

It's some more bits on Jason. Just for the record, I did run a half marathon before three or three sets.

Yeah, you did. You did run. That's true. So Jason said this been trying to share the gospel with a barista who practices

Islam. He keeps saying Jesus and Mohammed are both prophets. Any suggestions? Well, I'll give one.

I'm sure Andrew's got more to one of the things I said to. And I sorry, I keep looking at my screen. It's like it looks like I'm looking down at the cameras like way up there.

Sorry, I have to look like at a picture. So in any case, when it came to this guy last night, the

Muslim, I did ask him who he thinks Jesus is. Do you believe that he's he's a a prophet and a good moral teacher?

And he said, well, yes. And I said, well, here's here's the thing you have to deal with. And John 14, six.

Well, actually, first of all, I said throughout the Gospel of John and in other parts of the New Testament, Jesus is called

God. We see throughout the Gospels, especially Gospel of John. Jesus claims to be God over and over again that the

Pharisees multiple times picked up stones to stone him because he was committing blasphemy. He claimed to be

God. Jesus claimed to be God over and over again. And then I said, even in John 14, six,

I said, Jesus said, I'm the way, the truth and the life. No one comes the father but by me. I go. So I said,

Cal, you've you've got an issue here. If Jesus is is is a prophet, a good moral teacher must tell the truth.

You have to deal with all of his words. Was he telling the truth or wasn't he?

You can't have it both ways. And that's one thing that I do to every

Muslim when I talk to him because they hold Jesus in high regard as a prophet. The problem is, is they're ignoring his words.

So, yeah, and one of the things you could bring, I mean, there's a lot you could bring out. One of the things

I brought out with Colin, I bring out with many Muslims is the question of could the author of the

Koran make an error? And they'll say no. And then I bring up, as we mentioned, sort of 570,

I think 73. Anthony, look, I think that's what it was. I'd have to look at my book. What do we believe? I don't have memorized.

But the fact that the Koran teaches that Allah says to Jesus, have

I ever told you to be worshiped as God or your mother? We don't worship

Mary. In fact, when you look at the context there, it mentions the

Trinity. So what you end up seeing is that it teaches the Trinity is the father, the mother and the son.

That's a definitional error. It's not something like where there's two people that Jesus heals and one comes back and talks to him or there's 10 lepers that are healed and one comes back and talks to him.

And, you know, that's where there's 10 healed, but only one came back. No, the issue that you have a wrong definition, you define the

Trinity that we believe Mary is God. Complete false. Matt Slick always brings up the passage in the

Koran that says that the seed of the man is in the small of the back. And we now know semen is not in the small of the back.

It's an error. So there's a lot of contradictions in the Koran. But the real thing is, is that the

Koran teaches them. We did this with with Kyle is to ask him, do you do you believe what the

Koran says that the book that and the people of the book could be trusted when, you know,

Muhammad wrote that in the 700s? And he said, yes. Well, we have plenty of manuscripts of the

Bible that are exactly as the manuscripts we would have today in the Greek that are pre 700s.

So we know that it hasn't been changed. And so he didn't know that. And so that was enlightening to him, and that was hopefully helpful.

But the most important thing we communicated is that Jesus claimed to be God, and he had to be

God for us to be able to have forgiveness of sin. Right. Yep, absolutely. And Katie and Jesus, those are a lot of great verses you just put up.

My favorite to use is that John 8, 58. Did you have here, Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was,

I am that whole passage, a couple of verse before and after is great. We brought that up because we brought it up yesterday.

Jesus, I think you even said Jesus claimed that he was God and they want to stone him.

And then I had said, well, yeah, he said before Abraham was, I am. And the father and I are one.

And you had said they, why did, what did they do? They picked up stones to stone him. Why? Not for any good works he does, but for him being a man claimed to be

God. Yep, that's, that's absolutely right. So, so yeah, but those are all great ones there.

Drew wrote this, not to mention Uthman gathered all writings and burned them so they could have only one version of the

Quran. And we talked about that. That's a big thing because he was saying the Bible's been edited. I talked about, you know,

Uthman. Uthman is the third caliph. He was about 1800 years after the death of Muhammad.

And so he gathered, he had, remember at that time, the Quran was all oral.

And so he commissioned them, the warriors, because they died in battle. He had them all write it down and he asked for them to all write it down because he was going to have a written

Quran. But he discovered they didn't write the same things. And so what happened was he put an edict to burn the abhorrent text.

And I asked Kala, how do you know he burned the right ones? You don't know.

You don't know if he, if he got the, got it wrong. Because they believe that God wrote through Moses and men corrupted it.

David and men corrupted it. Jesus and men corrupted it. And then Muhammad, it can't be corrupted, I said.

But how do you know he burned the right ones? Maybe he burned the wrong ones and men corrupted it again.

See, logically, they would have to accept that where we would say it's never been corrupted. And so we ended up talking about that a bit, too, about the fact that Uthman collected these.

And the fact that they were differences meant that they didn't all remember it the same way, which is the claim that it's all perfectly done audibly, but perfect.

And yet if there were abhorrent texts, it wasn't. Yeah. And Jason says, thank you. That will give me some great direction.

You're welcome. So I saw some other comments in here about evangelism. And, you know, yes, it looks like Andrew and I are bold, but I can tell you that while we have good stories, right, of going out evangelizing, don't think that we would rather sit inside and not go anywhere.

Right. This is I mean, yes, I love the hot tub and it's fun to sit in there, but it's still never easy to talk about the gospel of people.

Right. You're always putting yourself out there. So, you know, there's nothing magical about us doing this. We're just doing what we are commanded to do in Scripture, Matthew 28, 2

Corinthians 5 and other areas. And what I'd encourage you all to do if you're not evangelizing or you're worried about evangelizing, carry gospel tracts on you, carry good gospel tracts on you, get them from Strive for Eternity, get them from One Million Tracts, get them from Gospel Tract Planet, but get good tracts and just hand them to people.

And eventually you're going to get more bold and actually start to have some conversations.

OK, so you're teaching an evangelism training right now for Beulah Baptist Church. Is that online?

That will be online. So go and look at the YouTube channel for Beulah Baptist Church. You'll be able to get the training that Anthony is giving.

And see, it's like there's nothing special about Anthony and I. And people think, oh, you guys have so many answers.

No, it's just we've been doing it for a long time. That's really all it is. We've been learning one answer to one question and then another and another and another.

And so granted, sitting in the hot tub is a nice way to do it. It's more relaxing.

It's more relaxing, but actually, you know, it's neat because when we're out here, you know, we're away and we're doing ministry and we're doing some, you know, we're trying to have some time with our family.

But the reality is when we're in a hot tub, everybody there is on vacation. So it's like, where are you from? What do you do?

It makes it easy. It does make it a lot easier. I will admit that. Yeah, yeah. Katie and Jesus says you probably don't suffer with brain fog.

All the time. Sometimes we do. Now, I will say, I'm going to give a quick plug on this stuff.

Here we go, keto. Keto diet is one way to help out. I knew we were coming.

Folks, I did have the, you know, we're down here for two weeks. I said, okay, no mention of keto.

I knew he couldn't do it. Just saying. Say it like every day still.

You know what? I will say that for me personally, when I got off of the gluten,

I had already been dairy free for years. When I got off the gluten, a lot of my brain fog went away.

And then in recent times, when I went on a keto diet with no sugar, eating more vegetables, most of the, any brain fog has gone.

I mean, yeah, you still get some things here and there from, you know, older age, but. I just run 13 miles a day and I don't have it.

Yeah, that's good. I'm glad you don't have it anymore. But I will say that there are ways.

I do like the idea of your diet being all steak and salmon and eggs. And some salad, but you can put a ton of olive oil on it.

It's just the no sugar. Stevia, monk fruit extract, erythritol.

They taste wonderful. Coffee creamer. I make my own coffee creamer. I drink one coffee a day and it's full fat coconut cream, like a whole tablespoon in there.

I put in a couple drops of liquid stevia or some monk fruit extract and it is absolutely delicious.

And you can even buy, like if you like flavored things, you can buy essential oils from a company called Revive. I'm sorry, do not have any discount codes with Revive, but it's pretty cheap essential oil.

Much more quality than what Zotero and Young Living is. These are all ingestible, European standard.

You can put a drop of vanilla, drop of chocolate, drop of whatever in there and make literally any type of creamer you want that way.

And so Jason Cave said, what is the brand of vitamins you've mentioned in the past? The two brands that I recommend the most that the naturopaths all talk about, number one is

Premier Research Labs, and the other one is Pure Encapsulations. What about Life Extension?

Life Extension is good, but Life Extension, to be careful, there's some that are clean and there's others that are not.

So I'm not a fan of magnesium stearate and some of those fillers, and some Life Extension has them, some that don't.

One of the things I know that you've turned me on to Life Extension is their niacin flush with my blood pressure.

All these different things I've tried for my blood pressure, that took care of it. Yeah, so niacin is called a flush formula.

Not a no flush, but a flush formula. And you can take this niacin 500mg tablet, and within an hour your skin is all beet red.

You might get some hives. I'm glad I'm getting over that because I took it just before the show. None of you guys saw it.

I saw you beet red like I've seen you every day. But it makes you beet red. What it does is it opens up your blood vessels, and it causes your body to start cleaning out the blood and putting toxins into the lymph tissues.

All the naturopaths talk about this. It works really well. So I'm glad you're seeing success too with it. But having said that, if you email me, anthony at strivingforeternity .org,

I am happy for friends and family. All of you are friends and family. I'm happy to give you my discount codes for the doctor discount codes.

When you go to Premier Research Labs, every vitamin you can get is 45 % off with a special code.

You get it essentially from my wholesale pricing. And you can buy whatever you want whenever you want.

And you can buy all your supplements from there cheaper than the cheap Walmart brands for top brands in the world.

And then Pure Encapsulations is not quite as good of a discount I can get. It's about 20 % off. But it's still good.

So anybody is welcome to have that. Because our goal is just to help people with health.

And yeah. So call me for the codes you've gotten. And so with that, next week

I'm trying to remember what we have. I think next week we're going to do an open Q &A.

Melissa says real coffee drinkers drink at Black Anthony. That's racist. I just want you to know that, Melissa. Just kidding.

I know. I'm a sissy when it comes to coffee. I have to have a lot of cream and sweetener.

Just stop with you're just a sissy. No, no. With coffee. No, I like the idea of you're just a sissy.

Yeah, I know. I know you like that. We'll just have to let everyone know next week who wins tennis matches.

No, I admit that you'll probably win because I don't care to win. And I like to win.

And you like to win. I just enjoy the exercise and running around the court. And I will admit there were a couple where he was a tad bit surprised that I got to the ball.

I was surprised you got to some of them. That is true. But as far as coffee goes, coffee is actually really good for you.

Once a day, one to two cups a day has been shown to be hugely beneficial. Drinking it black is fine.

And I will tell you, most keto guys will tell you you should drink it black if you can. If not, the only thing you should use is a little bit of coconut cream with some type of stevia or monk fruit extract.

So that's the way I do it because I just can't do black coffee. Raven and Rose says

Revive is great. It's less expensive, not cheap. It does direct online sale, cuts out the middleman.

That is correct. It's European standard.

And it's literally half to a third of the cost of the equivalents in doTERRA and Young Living. And a whole lot cheaper than either one of those because it cuts out the middleman.

You can go directly to Revive -eo .com and go order those essential oils.

And if you order enough, you can get 15 % and 20 % off. So it's a great one to do.

So the next two weeks, we'll probably have some open Q &A. But after that, on the 26th of January, we're going to be having

John Harris from Conversations That Matter podcast come in. We're going to talk about Tim Keller.

Yes. Is Tim Keller sound or not? Well, that's going to be the discussion.

It's easy. He's whacked on Genesis. No. Yeah. There's a lot of things he's whacked on.

He's a socialist. He has a wrong view of Genesis and other things, maybe even the

Trinity. We're going to discuss those things. Well, that's going to be interesting. Check that out.

And so we encourage you to keep listening, keep checking out everything we have. Follow or subscribe to the

Apologetics Live podcast because that gets us up in the charts. We appreciate that. Give us reviews.

Oh, the comments of the night. Thank you, Melissa Owens. Hey, now, Gramps has game, Anthony. Hey, I don't mind the fact that I'm a grandfather and I have game and can beat you.

I'm just saying if I win, you won't see him next week. That's my theory. Which means you'll see me next week.

Leilani says, I do appreciate your grace in talking with others. Too many people get frustrated and start name calling, and I really believe that pushes people away and causes division between believers.

Absolutely. I mean, we are, you know, 1 Peter 3, the entire chapter is about the

Christian's conduct. We first see it with husband and wife in the first bunch of verses. Even going so far as to say an unbelieving wife should not leave her unbelieving husband.

That she needs to win him over by her pure, pure conduct. And we see later on in talks about evangelism and apologetics about our conduct.

1 Peter 3, 15, doing it in gentleness and respect. So, yeah, we absolutely have to have to be graceful and be kind when we are out there.

And that's what you're going to see on this show. I mean, we have a history of it that we don't disrespect people.

We try to respect them even when we disagree, even when believers are unbelievers.

So that's what you end up seeing here. We give, I mean, clearly gave

Chris the opportunity to share his opinions. You know, try not to cut him off.

He had plenty of time to speak, and that's what we do consistently. Yeah, that's right. Drew Vanita says,

Anthony, were you getting your eggs because we have to sell blood here to afford them? Man, it is unfortunate.

Eggs have gone up like fourfold in the last year to year and a half. But I would tell you this.

Especially organic. Especially free range. Yeah. Joe Biden doesn't understand this because, well, he doesn't buy his own eggs.

Yeah. And the reality is the right eggs are eggs that when you crack them are deep orange in their yolk.

The more orange, the better. When they're yellow, that means they're not pasture raised. And so the best eggs to get are ones that are pasture raised organic eggs.

Which at Whole Foods, unless you find them on sale, are going to be like seven bucks a dozen. They're expensive.

What I recommend and what I do when I'm home is I speak at Joe Conkle's church in Mansfield, Ohio, about an hour away.

And they have several farmers in their church. Sarah Cleveland goes to church there as well.

And they have chickens. We actually just buy our eggs from all them. And they do it for a really reasonable price.

So I'd recommend finding a farmer. That's what I do. The guy who drives me to the airport, basically, you know, he drives me to the airport every time

I have to fly. I pay him for the gas and then I buy eggs from him. So, yeah.

So we appreciate you guys listening. I know we went over time because, well, somebody over there is fault.

But, no, we appreciate you guys. And just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

And we'll see you next week. Probably an open Q &A, but we'll see what we have. But I'm sure it will be good for you.