Apologetics Open Q&A

Oh, here I am talking the whole time, and my mic is muted. Welcome to Apologetics Live. All right. I had a muted mic. I've been out of the seat for a while, and therefore maybe I just have to get used to things.

So let me start that intro over again. Sorry for the dead air. Welcome to Apologetics Live. This is where we answer all of your questions. Any questions you have about God and the Bible, we can answer them here.

And so Drew says that I pulled an Anthony. Wow. That's pretty insulting there, Drew. No, but I guess you're right. I guess you're correct. All right. So Apologetics Live, go to ApologeticsLive .com. That is the place to go to get all of your questions answered.

That is what we are going to do here tonight. This is an open Q &A, so anyone can come in, ask any questions. I am solo, solo that I couldn't raise my voice up. No, I am the only host here tonight, so we will see how things go.

Podcast Movement, Daily Wire, and the News of the Week

But as we begin, I will do some in the news segments. We may have somebody. We'll see. A heckler who came in, a heckler from online that had said he would come in. So we'll see if he joins us. Went through reading his 300-page book to prepare.

So we'll see if that goes. So in the news segment, and actually I guess I should give a, oh wait, Anthony Svestro is watching because he said, glad you joined the tech-challenged side. For folks who may be new and don't know, it is usually our other host, Anthony, who is tech-challenged.

And usually every episode, and we mean every episode, something, I mean, he's got the equipment. It goes well. Oh, that's interesting. Okay. We did have our heckler came in. I just saw that he popped in, put a chat in the private chat, said, I came, and then left the group.

I don't know if that means he's not planning on. Okay. At least he kept his word that he would show up. Oh, it takes a lot to come on the show. Okay. It looks like he may be coming back. There we go. Okay.

So for a second there, I thought Joe was not going to show up or just leave. So Anthony's usually the one that's tech-challenged, but this week, yes, I will count it though. I'll let you guys do be the audience and see how many times I have kept, whether how many times I have been challenged here with technology versus Anthony.

We'll leave that for you guys to decide. Those who are regulars, I think we know the answer. All right. So in the news section for you, a couple of things that I had noticed. One, any podcaster out there, if you are a podcaster, you have a podcast.

One of the big groups that have a conference for podcasting called Podcast Movement. I can no longer, as the Executive Director of Christian Podcast Community, will no longer recommend Podcast Movement for Christians or actually anyone conservative, in case you don't know what happened.

They had their event this week. They took money from Daily Wire. Daily Wire is a conservative news outlet of which they have several podcasts, one of which is Ben Shapiro. And Ben Shapiro being like one of the top-rated podcasts in the world, he had a booth at the Podcast Movement.

Now, this should be a conference about podcasting. However, when the nerve of Ben Shapiro shows up to attend his own booth that he paid them to be there with, they were so offended, they had to publicly, they had to ask him to leave and then publicly put an apology for the harm that it caused everybody.

Now, what ended up happening is that they did, we were in contact with Daily Wire, and they tried to say that they, because Daily Wire responded to this and they didn't like that response, and they basically said that they do not allow any of the talent to show up when they have a booth.

Yet, most of the people that speak are the talent, and they have a booth. And so, Daily Wire basically said they wanted the post removed, and the response was that they don't, they're not a political organization, they are there to promote podcasting.

Interesting, because when they were asked to remove that post by Daily Wire because it says that it caused harm to people having Ben Shapiro there, that they weren't going to remove. And that is clearly political when you're claiming it does harm and damage just by his presence.

Now, we got a Facebook user that's saying, good morning, brothers. If you want to know how to get your name showing up so that we know who you are, that would be very nice for us. Just go to ApologeticsLive .com, and the instructions are right there to get Facebook to allow you to, for us to see your name, which is very helpful instead of just referring to you as Facebook user.

But good morning, Facebook user. I'm gonna assume you're somewhere on the other side of the world. One other thing in the news section that I wanted to talk about is something that I think is very, very serious, very concerning, at least for Americans.

Recently, there was the FBI that raided the previous president's home in search for documents. Now, according to President Trump, those documents are documents that he declassified, so coming in there to look for classified documents doesn't, the president can declassify whatever he wants.

And so, if he deemed them declassified, they are classified, and he wouldn't need to even lock them up. Now, one of the things that people are seeing is that these documents that they show pictures still have markings that say top secret or secret.

Yes, that is exactly what happens with a declassified document. It will still have the markings. It will usually, they'll usually mark something over it. But typically, what documents that are top secret will have is actually a date, and it is automatically declassified after usually 25 years.

For some reason, whoever shot JFK, we can't know that. That had to be extended for longer. And so, we have, oh, hey, we have Fabio. He says, hey, Andrew, this is Fabio. We met at Living Waters event this weekend.

God bless you, brother. So, hey, great to meet you. I was at the Living Waters Ambassador Academy. It was a great event. We had a great time with all of the academy students there. They were learning to do evangelism.

I think that there were several who got a little bit of a surprise when I decided to open air. For those who know my voice, you know what they did not. Several people thought that somebody was amplifying because they heard me quite a ways away.

And so, Drew is saying that the documents so classified by the FBI in the picture that they posted, correct. And what you saw there was a folder that some have where it would say secret or top secret.

That would be a folder it was kept in. But the printed document would, you know, typically still have the markings because it was printed that way. Fabio was saying your voice is crazy loud. Yes. There were several who, Dr. Sylvester, who is his team was with mine, and he knew to back up when I got up there because he knows how loud I can get without amplification.

And people were a little bit surprised by that. But why do I have such concern with this issue with what the FBI is doing with the previous president? First off, this has never been done in history. That is concerning.

A second thing is the fact that. At least according to President Trump, what he declassified and had was papers that show that the FBI had broken the law in illegally spying on him. That is very concerning if they went in and took documents that could prove their guilt.

If the FBI is now being used as an arm of the government of a specific party, that becomes a very concerning thing. So that is the next step. Some of you who are regulars here, you know that I've been saying this for years with my background, being Jewish and being raised after the Holocaust and having that training in Hebrew school of identifying the the the steps that someone goes through, a country goes through to get that to become a state like the Nazis.

We are at that point when you have the government using a an arm of the government being a police or law enforcement to enforce a specific party and to to go after a previous president that is likely to run again.

Joe Biden, there was a memo that showed that Joe Biden's administration did give the go ahead, which means that he is giving the go ahead to go and investigate his not only predecessor, but his probable opponent in the next election.

This is basically trying to create a one party state. They're going after every one of Trump's lawyers to make it their life so miserable that they don't want to continue representing him. That becomes problematic because then you take away essentially his his rights to be able to have a case heard because no lawyer will represent him.

We see this going on in New York. The lawyers that won the case in the Supreme Court, which should be a win in their cap, they had been fired for winning their case. And that was the case with the gun rights.

And that makes it harder for people who have want to fight the government over gun issues to be able to to stand out with that. Now, let's see, Bill is saying this. He says, good evening from California, whereby 2035 only electric cars will be sold, but can't plug in our electric cars from four to nine during flex alert.

So what he's referring to is something that I had posted as well. California is forcing everyone to go to electric cars by 2035. But with their power grid not handling it, you can't they just announced you're not allowed to plug your car in from four o 'clock to nine o 'clock because the power grid can't handle it.

So that's concerning. Get everyone onto electric cars and then you can't use them because you got nowhere to go. So I saw Joe was backstage. His camera's off. Let me bring Melissa in here. Melissa, how are you this evening?

Do you have any questions for us?

Hi, Andrew. Yeah, I have one that I was thinking about. This is based on a conversation me and my mom had. She said when when she was younger, when she had a different husband, she said that they're reading through the Old Testament and it like describes something like a certain thing that happened.

And and then the husband said, oh, that's nasty. We're switching to the New Testament. So I was wondering because the New Testament tells us not to be sexually immoral. I was wondering, like, is because it's in the Bible, like the way it describes things, maybe such as like things like the Song of Solomon and other things, is it only appropriate because in the Bible, because like I would think like, yes, there's something that says if it was somewhere else, you read it like it'd be inappropriate.

I'm not sure what he was referring to specifically.

Oh, no, I know that. I know what he was saying. No, she said that it was, I don't know, it's kind of weird to say, but I'll just say what they said.

Well, I mean, but the point being is is is. I guess your question is, if the Bible says things, does that make it, would it be inappropriate? Is that your question?

No, I said if it was anywhere else, it would be inappropriate. But because it's in the Bible, is it considered okay? Yeah.

A sexual thing. Well, what we see in Scripture, and you referred to Song of Solomon, there is references that are not, they're not explicit. So yes, they are describing something that, you know, sexual relations are described in Song of Solomon, but it is not done in an explicit way.

And, you know, I know that when I pastored one church, we had one of the gentlemen who had a big problem with one of the words in the Song of Solomon. And so when we would read, we would, in that church, we would read through the Bible in the service, and he did not want the Song of Solomon read because there's a word that describes a female anatomy that he did not like, and he thought it inappropriate.

Now, the question is, is that word appropriate, or has it been hijacked? In other words, has it been used in our culture to have a negative view that it didn't have? In other words, there's certain words, there is a donkey mentioned.

If you read King James, it has a word for the donkey that in the time was not a bad word, but in our day it is. So some translations have updated that, but is it wrong to read that? No. Well, that is what the word meant at that time.

It has a different connotation now, and therefore my suggestion would be is use newer translations so we don't have that issue, because our culture has morphed and really corrupted things. Um, you know, so I wouldn't say that we say it's just the argument of saying it's just in the Bible, therefore it's appropriate.

In all others' cases, it wouldn't be. It's the case that we have to recognize that words have changed. I mean, the word gay, for example, I always use this. FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States many years ago, was referred to as a very gay man.

People didn't think gay is homosexual. However, in his day, it only meant happy. He was saying he was a very happy individual. It wasn't, and if you know anything about FDR, you know it wasn't that he was a homosexual because he got in trouble with his wife because he was having affairs with other women.

Now, it could be that his wife, there was questions whether his wife had interests in men, but so Drew is saying here, could you say it's the difference between poetic literature versus erotic literature?

And I think that would be a really good way of explaining it, because what we see in the Song of Solomon and the Hebrew poetry is something where it is not being explicit on purpose, and it's something where it's using language that's poetic, figurative, and not explicit, not clear to where, I mean, it's nothing like, oh, what's the book?

I forgot the book now that's in the kindergarten schools. It's a queer book. Literally, it's about homosexuality and talks explicitly about doing things sexually and having adults do things to children sexually.

That is purposefully sexualized. Now, that's going to be very different than something that is describing the beauty of love within a marriage. They're very different, and so we don't want to allow the world to corrupt what is beautiful, and so I think what we do is we need to explain the differences, and truthfully, anything we have in the Bible is mild compared to what we see in culture in America, for sure, but I think sometimes people try to make excuses by saying, well, this is in Bible, therefore, the erotic stuff is okay, too, and if people are doing that, then that's the.

Problem. Yeah, that's a good answer. Do you mind if I plug my show before I go? Sure, go ahead. I have a show called Truth Be Told Radio, and you can check it out, truthbetoldradio .com is the website, and it's on Sundays, usually 2 p .m. to 4 p .m., but sometimes I do a little bit later, but it's around then on Sundays.

Are you still on Blog Talk? Yeah, I've been on that for several years, I think 2009, maybe. Yeah, you were an early adopter. Yeah, it was before everybody.

Was podcasting, I was podcasting. Yeah, before that was a thing, and back when you started,.

They offered it free for life, and so you got in early. Oh, I didn't get the free for life.

No, you didn't. Oh, you were in early enough. Unless they just start charging, because I know they were having to start charging people. My mom pays for my show,.

She's my sponsor. I hope you thank her. Yeah, I do. Okay. Thank you. Bye.

The Meaning of Law, Conscience, and Moral Obligation

All right, so I don't know if Joe is there, he's not on camera. Oh, there he is. Okay, so let me bring Joe in. All right, Joe, can you hear me okay? Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear my voice? Yeah, so you went outside, so now you look, we just have the silhouette of you.

Okay. Actually, I'm in the garden, near to the Wi-Fi.

Ah, well, near to the Wi-Fi is good. So let me set this up for folks, and I want to give you a chance to explain your view. I put a quote out, I'm just going to look at this. I put a quote out from John Calvin, it said, it is the quote, hell reigns wherever there is no peace with God, unquote, John Calvin.

And there was lots of different responses, but you had a response, you jumped in on it and said, and Calvin takes away the peace by teaching saints are under the obligation to keep law. And we were going back and forth.

You basically told me to look up Luther's view of his commentary on Galatians 3, which I didn't get a chance to do. You sent your book, which is 303 pages long that I spent today reading. And so I first want to ask you, before I get into you giving your view of this, it did confuse me, and you and I talked about this a little bit privately.

The book is authored, and the way it's authored is by, pronounce your.

Last name so I don't mispronounce it. Okay, Bija. And you're close to the Wi-Fi and you're digitizing,.

That's not good. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, I can hear you. Okay, you're digitizing, so either we don't have, either you got to get closer to your Wi-Fi. Can you hear me now? Well, it's not a matter of not hearing you, it's that the internet is not, your internet's not strong enough.

Maybe with sending the video, you might have to turn your.

Video off if we can't. Oh, I can see your video properly. I can hear your voice also. Yeah,.

It's just that we can't hear you. You're sounding like a robot. Oh, really? Yeah, because the is there, maybe try turning the video off and we'll just, because we're getting that distortion you get when you don't have a strong internet signal.

So it's not that we can't hear you. No, I hear your voice, but I don't know what's happening. Yeah, there we go. Okay, let's try speaking a little bit longer. Oh, can you hear much now? Yeah, although there's still a little distortion, so we'll have to see.

We'll see how this works. So one of the things I thought interesting with this was you titled your author as the author page, and I'll just, I'll share it so people can see what I'm talking about. It's written by Jonathan Bija, if I pronounce that right.

Okay, so it looks, this looks like it was authored by two people, Jonathan Bija and Charles Spurgeon, which got me curious. I was like, well, Spurgeon wrote this, but you said Charles Spurgeon's your middle name, which confused me because usually a middle name goes in the middle.

So I'm just curious. I have two points of curiosity before we get into context. Why did you put your name as Jonathan Bija Charles Spurgeon when it should really be.

Jonathan's Charles Spurgeon Bija? I don't know the author generally in India. Actually, my name was like Bija Jonathan Charles Spurgeon. First comes the last name, and then the first name and the middle name.

So I don't know this author, but I just put Jonathan Bija Charles Spurgeon. Just use my name for my advantage. That's it. Yeah. And that was what I was thinking.

Was that you were using it to your advantage. And now you're Spurgeon, as you and I talk, Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Your dad was a Calvinist. You're not a Calvinist. I guess.

You're more Lutheran from our conversations. No, no, no, not necessarily. I mean, I don't know in which box you put me, but I do believe in the doctrine of election and total depravity and all those stuff.

I do believe. It's not like Lutherans. I don't think Lutherans believe in.

Most of them. Yeah. Well, I think they would, but okay. So that answered one question. And let me go to, I'm very curious about this page. This is the dedication. I am really, I'm going to assume the best and figure that you have just a typo or, but are you, when you say dedicated to the savior of Lord Jesus Christ and his servants, are you implying that the Lord Jesus Christ is in need of a savior?

Then say me,.

Do Lord Jesus Christ called, said that I am going to my father and your father, my God, and your God. I don't think savior is using saying my savior is greater than calling my God. Right. If you can call someone my savior, and if you call someone, my God, which one is great.

My God is great. Right. So I'm saying I put that word because father is the one who promised that he is going to make his enemies, his footstool. Right. And Jesus, if you read in Psalm 22, he prayed father to save him from the death and from the enemies.

It's not, I mean, it's just your conscious that tricking you to see it as some, is it a heresy or something like that? It is that word make, I know that word makes you in your conscious a little bit uncomfortable.

I know that. I put that because I just want to give praise to the father, to the God. That's it.

Okay. But, but there is, there's a distinct difference in saying.

To the. See, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus is the king of the saints. Imagine he sits on the throne of David and his people are like Israel. His saints are like Israel. Then who is the one that going to behind that is the one who is behind the Lord Jesus is the father.

His father is the one.

Yeah. I understand. There's a difference with the father and the son. What I'm asking is,.

Does Jesus in your mind need a savior? No. In what sense you are saying, like, I mean, uh, uh, you, you, you, you, you should not, uh, I know that did, uh, did pricks, you should not remove the humanity of Christ from him.

Uh, just by, I mean, it pricks you, this guy, what he's saying. Uh, I put that it because, uh, he, uh, father is his savior. He saved him from death. He raises him from death. Uh, do you remove that word in the scripture that father raised him from dead with his mighty power?

I mean, I know that you want to remove that.

Paul will say in like first Timothy, you know, uh, our God, uh, God, our savior and of Jesus.

Christ, our, our hope. Um, yeah, he's our savior. He's large. He's a savior and our savior. Lord Jesus is the salvation of God unto the ends of the earth. The salvation is comes from father through Lord Jesus.

So calling him, calling the father as a savior is not a wrong word. He says,.

There is no savior beside me. Okay. So I'm curious then, and I know this is off topic, but just in, um, I actually thought that it was just a typo and I knew you were from India and I was just, I was actually thinking it was going to be son that I let you know that you might want to stay dedicated to the savior and Lord Jesus Christ.

But, um, you, you meant that to be that God,.

The father is a savior to Jesus Christ. Is that correct? Yeah. Jesus Christ. Okay. I know how God.

Would be a savior to, to us human beings. In what sense then do you see him as the savior of Jesus.

Christ? Because he is father, he is the one who created all things by him, who is the one who sent Lord Jesus into the world to save us. He is the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead and, uh, seated on his right hand, who is the one who is going to make his enemies his footstool.

And Lord Jesus calls him savior, save me from, if you read the Psalms 22, he clearly says, right, save me from this and that. So then it's not wrong thing to call him a savior. Well, I mean, I don't understand why, uh, you're consciously steering, I mean, speared up with those words.

I know that it will spear up, but I just put that so that, uh, I can give the glory and praise to.

The God. Okay. Are you, are you just cause as we're having the conversations causing me to have.

Some questions, are, are you saying, so let me ask this, is Jesus sinless? Yeah. Okay. So God didn't save him from sin. No, I'm, uh, saving is not only, uh, confined to the scene. He can save from enemies.

He can save from death. He can save from other things. It's just a word, you know?

Yeah. Yeah. So, and, and like Fabio says, I'll, I'll ask his question for him. Why would God, the son need to be saved from God? The father, we are the sinners, not him. I'm confused.

No, no, no, no. Uh, uh, the context is different. I'm not saying Lord Jesus Christ need to be saved from his father. God, I'm saying he's going to save his people through Lord Jesus. I mean, who else is behind the Lord Jesus?

Who is the power and who is the one behind the Lord Jesus.

Is the father, right? If you are, but they're within the same Godhead. And so I don't think of, you know, I don't think of Jesus having needed a savior. Uh, for example, when he was on the cross, uh, he said he would raise himself from the dead.

He didn't, I mean, the father rose him from the dead. The spirit rose him from that. They're all involved in.

His resurrection. All that's true. But what I'm saying is I am, I gave praise to the father because the book I wrote is in context to father's making his enemies foot, his footstool. So, uh, the, so I gave praise to the father who is going to make his enemies means Christ's enemies, his footstool.

He promised that and he's going to keep that. So I gave, I chose to praise father for that. And it's not any big issue. I'm not saying saving is, uh, you're saying is saving is something it's not confined only to sin or any particular thing.

Saving can be any.

Process from anything. Yeah. And that's, that's what I guess I just wanted before you started clarify how you mean he's that Jesus needs a savior. Um, but we'll move on. Um, and let me just, let me answer one question real quick here from Kyle.

Kyle Kyle says, Dr. Andrew, you look restored physically. Well, two things with this Kyle. First off, I'm not a doctor, at least not yet. Um, but I did see many doctors. Uh, I am doing better physically.

Uh, I am in great amount of pain though. Even right now, um, folks who don't know, I was in an ATV accident, broke a rib and fractured another punctured a lung. Uh, so I was out in California doing open air evangelism, which forced me to use my lungs.

Basically speaking is painful. So, uh, but it's good for me is what the doctor said, because it forces me to breathe in and to, to use my full breath. So, uh, I was out and, um, using my, my voice, which shocked, uh, as Fabio has said, you know, shocked some folks.

Um, but yeah, so Chris on holds just says about that wording, he says, sounds very poor usage of the word and just, it is confusing. It might be something you, you may want to think of, uh, you know, um, the way some people may react to, to that in that.

So, so let's, let's get into what I want to do is give you a chance to explain your view and why you believe Calvin, uh, puts people under the law, uh, which, you know, I find interesting because everything I know of Calvin and his teaching, uh, would be the opposite.

And so I want to give you a chance to explain, but I'm, I'm going to say that, you know, this isn't an opportunity to do a sermon, uh, because I want to interact with you. So I'm gonna, you know, I'll stop you at points where I want clarification, but I want you to try to be as concise and as brief as possible.

Um, you know, I, I know you have a written 300 pages, uh, on this, but so having read that, I'd, I'd like you to be, try and be as concise as possible. So, so if you could.

Explain your view. Okay. Uh, when I say, uh, living under the law, I am saying means living in your conscious subconscious and judging your thoughts, actions, and deeds, according to the standard of the law, living under the lungs.

That's what I meant. And then alive unto law means also that your conscious will be alive to the standard, not the humans, human interpretation of the standard of the law, but the actual high standard of the moral law of God.

Okay. So that's.

A thing. So let me first ask when you, when you're using the word law, because there's different usages for law, um, when you're using law, cause you're saying that, yeah, I will give you the.

Law. Law means all the 10 commandments and all that is related to the 10 commandments, both in old Testament and in the sermon on Mount and in other gospels. And then in episodes, everything that is a moral law, which is some way or the other way tied to the 10 commandments.

That's a moral law. So are you, you're limiting it to the 10 commandments then?

No, no, no. 10 commandments from that. It, everything springs allowed by neighbor from that. It, everything's, uh, um, give charity. Everything comes to that. And even, uh, Mount sermon on Mount also is a, it also comes under the law.

All that is morality, what is right and what is wrong. Evil and good. So two thoughts with that. I mean, first off,.

Jesus actually put the, he had it reversed. He said that the law comes out of love. God love your neighbor. Yeah. That became so, so the moral law, the 10 commandments come from that. But when.

You're just saying that, which is right and wrong. Um, yeah, that shows what is right and wrong. Yeah. But the law reveals what it's, if you are doing something, it shows that you are doing something wrong.

It's in our conscious, right? Yeah. But, but every law is, is moral. I mean, that's what a law is. Yeah. I mean, uh, because these people have some, I just, I use moral because they segregate into civil law, civil law, and then, uh, land disputes and all other things like, uh, ceremonial last year, suppose ceremonial law is their civil law is their moral lies there.

Just, I'm saying when I use a lie, it's about the morality, which moral law, which, uh, you feel, uh, if you do something wrong, you will be pricked in your conscious. You are, it tells you, you are doing wrong.

That's what I meant to law there. Okay. And, and I, I'm, I know we're spending a.

Little bit of time on this, but it's essential to, you know, throughout your book, it becomes very important to understand how law is being used because I don't, I do not break up the law by ceremonial civil and moral, but because that's not how the Bible breaks it up.

We don't see that distinction. And in fact, I would, I would say people would be hard pressed to try to figure out which of the 614 laws are in which of those categories. Um, people will always say the 10 commandments is in the moral law.

Some people limited only to the 10 commandments, but from a Jewish perspective, the laws, these are holiness laws. These are laws. Yeah. Yeah. They are there.

Ceremonial law, like washing and all those stuff are there. What I'm saying is the law was written given to juice in a written format, but Gentiles also have law. They have the, that is ingrained in their conscious.

When, when Paul writes to Galatians, before you came to Christ, you are under law. He's not saying they are under the Jewish law. They never, they were never under the Jewish law that the law is in their conscious.

That's what, that's what Paul was referring to in Galatians or in Romans when he talking to Gentiles, he's not referring to the Jewish 600 laws. He's saying the law in the conscious. So let me, let me use some different language.

And see if we, if we're in agreement and then if we are, we can then use language that we know we're, we're in agreement. I refer to universal law laws for the nation of Israel laws for the church. So when I'm, what I mean by universal, let me give you a, for instance, I think that on the seventh day of creation, God created, had a law for all human beings universally about a Sabbath that they should take one day off from working a day that should be devoted to worship, but that they work for six days, rest for one that is universal for all people.

However, when Moses came along, God had specific laws for the nation of Israel. That was for the nation, not for the Gentiles that had more on top of that, which said, you can, you can't do this. You can't do that.

You can do this. And that was for the nation of Israel. And there's laws that are for that nation that don't apply to the Gentiles. And then after Christ, there became laws that were specific for the church.

For example, we see the, you know, the nine of the 10 commandments reiterated in the new Testament. We don't see the Sabbath because it's already a universal law from the seventh day of creation.

I would say we, we're all still under that. No, no, no. He says, do not anyone judge you for Sabbath or full moon days. He said that Sabbath or full moon days or anything like that. The thing is the law is there.

It came into existence upon human conscious from the time when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, which gives them knowledge of good and evil. That's from, it stems from that time, even before Moses, people knew that doing certain thing was wrong.