Ergun Caner, and Seven Bible Verses We Need to Know and Be Able To Proclaim

and welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon a little bit earlier than we've been doing the program but We have things to do today.

So we will have a regular sized program today and I'm not even 100 % certain what it's all gonna be about yet.

I've got stuff. We'll see who knows Maybe you might even open the lines Be toward the end of the hour if if we do that big news yesterday

We had been I guess it just it's because it took the judge so long to type all this out

Hey, we had been expecting a decision in the Autry case the second of the two canterbuckle cases

Both clear examples of a Christian leader refusing to obey scripture and not being called to obey scripture by Everybody else basically and As you recall the first program first program the first lawsuit against Jason Smathers was decided a few weeks ago and once again, that was a dismissal of the case that very clearly the posting of the marine videos was fair use and Then Yesterday afternoon the decision came down from judge moon in regarding the it initially been a a single case where canary tried to sue two different people and They successfully got that divided.

And so this was the second case and I don't know the details.

I think I think the I think Jason Is Jason and channel?

No, not the well, wait a minute No, not the month anyway,

I Don't know why the the

Representation was the way that it was but the big high -powered attorney That we had initially heard about here

This attorney Gibbs Evidently was only involved the Autry case.

I don't see his name associated with with Jason's case and He was the one that had made some amazing arguments just a couple weeks ago in court

Including the amazing argument that Autry is not smart enough To be a critic of Eric and Kanner and so you shouldn't be protected by fair use which

We went really Seriously That's Wow, and that's pretty much what the what the what the

Judge ended up saying was Wow But anyway,

I Here's just a couple quotes I linked to the witnesses unto me calm website that has the documents 41 page decision when the judge identifies as ludicrous the arguments of your attorney

Well, your attorney represents you so, you know, there you go

But remember that in in that recent hearing David Gibbs counsel for Kanner labeled

Autry a cyber terrorist and Argued that quote an anonymous cyber terrorist in my mind is not entailed the same fair use protection as others end quote

So here's here's moons response to Gibbs argument and I don't like using the term

Gibbs because I I do watch NCIS here at the office during lunch and I like Gibbs.

I like that Gibbs different Gibbs Let's just put it this way the Gibbs and NCIS would never argue like the

Gibbs in this particular lawsuit, let's just put that way He just give you one of those looks, you know

Anyways, yeah, that's exactly If if if the

NCIS Gibbs met the attorney Gibbs he'd go right up the side the head That's exactly right and appropriately.

So plaintiff's counsel made Astounding claims During the hearing that discovery would affect the fair use analysis

By showing that defendant was not quote qualified close quote to direct quote appropriate criticism close quote at plaintiff unlike quote people that are qualified to render those opinions in the marketplace an exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere close quote and Therefore defendant could not assert the fair use defense plaintiff's spurious assertion that fair use only applies where a speaker quote qualified to render opinions close quote or to lever level quote appropriate criticism close quote at a public figure proves ludicrous on its face

The first amendments protections advanced by the fair use defense have never applied to some bizarre oligarchy of qualified speakers

Excuse me when you use astounding ludicrous and bizarre You're really whipping out the the saris to come up with as many insults as you can come up with I mean, it's it's a it's a it's a obviously

This was a triple whack whack whack shot That that takes place here.

Yeah, I Shouldn't I shouldn't be laughing but I I just the the terminology is just is just great

So plaintiff himself has extolled the virtues of these Here now, here's a shot of absolute

This is this is where the judge is basically saying you'd be a hypocrite. Dr.

Cantor plaintiff himself has extolled the virtues of these protections and warned against the dangers of censorship and misinformation

Quote the one great exponent of America's freedom to think and rationally believe and reasonably consider for yourself and quote conveniently when criticism conveniently

When criticism is directed at him plaintiff comes before this court and argues that it should restrict

First Amendment fair use protection to some amorphous group of qualified speakers

When pressed the hearing to provide authority of this counter intuitive proposition

Plaintiff's counsel fell back on his beliefs and failed to do so as Defendants counsel aptly observed during the meet the hearing if plaintiff's counsel intends to make such outlandish

Arguments, he should go to the trouble of typing out the citations for any supporting authority.

I doubt such authority exists Wow, oh

Ha ouch Ouch, ouch. I mean this is this isn't just head slapping.

This is this is getting out the belt and doing a little Little a little whip in there.

Whoo. So, um, anyways, look We all knew that if justice was done if there is any meaningful

You know If justice was gonna be done that Cantor would lose these these lawsuits because everybody knew why he was doing it

Everybody knew he was trying to on the one hand Copyright these videos which he had not copyrighted.

So he was putting an application for it To my knowledge has never actually applied. I never actually received copyright ownership of the marine videos, especially of the one where he looks like I Mean, there's no light on him.

You know, we've shown it we've played it You know trying to claim copyright on that and Then the same time on Twitter He's trying to say that these were all edited by hyper

Calvinist So, I guess both attorneys are both judges,

I'm sorry Both judges must be must must be hyper

Calvinist Yes, that's they have to be in on the on the on the great conspiracy that Cantor has been claiming for himself and So we we have a

Man who is president of a small struggling Southern Baptist College in Southern, Georgia Who has sinfully and without repentance sued fellow believers

He has now lost we hope and pray obviously That he will be paying the legal fees in both of these situations as would be just and right and So my question is who is going to call

Ergon Cantor to repent for this to repent for suing

Christians to repent for bringing these items before Um unbelievers for ignoring first Corinthians chapter 6 and for all the other lies and Assembling that he did for almost 10 years

Who's gonna I mean we have and he's ignored that Who in his circle is going to call for his repentance?

And if that repentance is called for will it be a full? repentance

It would not be enough for him to come out and say well, you know, I I shouldn't have

I shouldn't have sued those those guys. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done that Because what would happen then is his spin guys

Like Peter Lumpkins, see he's he's apologized apologized for what?

We went through the alleged apology of 2010 and demonstrated it was anything but an apology and so Yeah, you just wonder you you just you just wonder

So there you go Ergon Cantor loses. Oh and two on the on the copyright lawsuit front

Which is a very good thing. You might find the discussion of That is provided in in the judges judge

Norman K moon John Ergon M Cantor versus Jonathan Autry To be very interesting but Jason gave us the good stuff there.

Anyways, and so I just I just love the the terms that were that were used there outlandish bizarre

Ludicrous astounding when the judge is using all those terms Wow, that's

Amazing pretty pretty amazing stuff. Ah Would that this thing would be over with I I really really would enjoy

Never having to mention Ergon Cantor's name again Some of you are probably

Wondering why I have not addressed yesterday's video online

Boy there are certain terms that come across my mind. I Will address the

Matthew Vines discussion including Rachel held Evans Probably next week

Yeah Well now and wait a minute, you know what Could you email?

Dr. Brown's folks to see if we can give a time To folks today so they know when to listen in tomorrow

Michael Brown is going to join me tomorrow. We're gonna be talking about his new book Maybe summer would you like to call in and talk to Michael when when

I was in When I was in Spain with Michael I called summer up so that Michael could talk to to summer on the phone and summer is in channel right now and Just just gave it just sent a picture of Of a

Ludicrous that's a ludicrous look. Yes. That's the ludicrous look right there Anyway, we need to give you the time tomorrow that We're gonna be on the program.

We're gonna do a special dividing line on Friday To talk about Michael Brown's new book. Can you be gay and Christian?

and Michael's book is You know, I always thought when I when I read his first book a queer thing happened to America.

I thought you know My book with Jeff Neal together with his because his didn't go into all the theological stuff

It didn't go into toy vine and and the the text and things like that. These two go together really well.

Well now he's written that element of it and You know dealing with what we what?

What really? anymore Was only known To a a small number of people

Now is that That's not that's not Clementine. Is it? Because that's a really is that Clementine?

I'll find out here in about 45 seconds in the channel if that picture is is

Clementine That's that's Wow Anyway The information that Most Christian pastors had

In the 1980s biblically about Homosexuality is what everyone needs to know now.

I've mentioned before I pretty much made it through seminary without Really having almost any meaningful discussion of homosexuality or knowing almost anything about what the scriptures said on that subject and That is just not possible any longer.

And so what Michael talks about in the book? You need to I don't care who you are.

I don't care what you do if you're going to be a Christian Who is?

Conversant and able to engage your society. You're going to need to know how to respond to para fucis

Fucin I think I don't have accordance up here Some reason my mouse doesn't want to go to this

One of the programs has crashed on me I didn't get a chance to Remind me later.

Go away. Remind me later again. Go away But hate those things Accordance, where are you?

There you are Romans chapter 1 You're going to need to know what?

Against nature means you're gonna need to be able to deal with the texts

That are found there and I just need to type this out Romans 126. Could you go there now?

Thank you Yeah Para fucin it's in the accusative there.

Just wanted to double -check it You're gonna need to know what that means. You're gonna need to know how to defend against the well

Paul uses that elsewhere to talk about long hair So Here it's just it's just Norms of the society you need to know that you're gonna need to know the term arson a coyotes

You're gonna need to know where it came from you're gonna need to know That the

Greek translation of The Old Testament is called the Septuagint and what terms are used in the

Greek Septuagint in Leviticus 18 and 20 When homosexuality is specifically addressed you say you say

That's too much. No, it's not No, it's not It's a it's a limited amount of information, but it is absolutely vital that you know it and we'll be talking about that tomorrow with with Michael Brown and I'm very much looking forward to that and so I I Will make sure that before we

Do the program or I will have listened to that particular Encounter with Rachel held

Evans and and Matthew Vines, but it started off It started off With I have no idea what summer's saying

I I see the picture but I I don't

I don't I Don't know who well, I mean, I mean maybe if I click on that it'll actually

Yeah, that that's yeah that is well what oh boy she's developing some interesting looks Yeah Really?

That is that is the the scariest look my granddaughter has ever given that I've ever seen on Facebook Your daughter's talking about apparently

This is a new thing that she does quite frequently when apparently you go to do something. She's not approving up well, it's my wife told me that she's learned to scowl and But that's that's not a scowl that's

That's that's the kind of look that you're afraid. The heads gonna start spinning around 360 That's a

I want the earth to open up underneath you and swallow you look That's bad the have you ever heard of Cora Cora teeth in an environment right there.

That's right Okay. All right. Anyway When you if you get any information back on that, let me know before the end of the program we'll let folks know when we're gonna do that and If I hear just some outrageous stuff what

I the the program yesterday started with this

Quoting of McGrath ultra -liberal way out there in in the boonies saying that This this book is going to change the entire conversation and I sit there and go

Okay There is nothing in this book that was not in Boswell and Brownson nothing

Why didn't those two books do the same thing? This is not an in -depth book, it's not a a book of scholarship

So How is that going to change the conversation well, it's all it's all just It's all just meant to be

Bad argumentation and that's exactly what it is. So we'll talk about it. If not tomorrow then next week once I've had the opportunity of Looking into that and listening to it and it's not gonna be enjoyable to listen to but we'll do it now with that in mind

Of someone on Twitter Sent me a a link and said what do you think about this and my initial response to it was

That the author is really ignorant But then the more I looked at the more I realized you know what?

This would this would be good to look at this would be good to look at Do you have this cropped and I hope

I cropped that the way you wanted it. Yep. Yep Yeah, let me Except I don't know what's going on with my screen

But my screen that that's I'm readable not even close to readable. It's all pixelated on my screen for some reason it's not and The same thing with with the what do you call that thing at the bottom of it?

Aha. No, it's very pretty Hmm, okay It's it's very good.

Yep, seven shocking Bible verses you probably won't hear in church as Western society becomes more and more and more

Vero virulently anti -christian all of us

Every one of us is Going to have to work to be able to fulfill the command of first Peter 315 to be ready to give an answer

And This particular article I think

Would be a good way of sort of testing yourself Testing your knowledge of Scripture and testing your self control ability

Self control ability in other words When this kind of thing is thrown at you

There are a lot of Christians that become emotional Become emotional because well, you're you're attacking the

Word of God. You're attacking the Bible and we have to recognize

Our own weaknesses in that area and refuse to give in to that kind of emotional response and we also need to Recognize the true elements

Even in attacks upon our faith for example Seven shocking

Bible verses you probably won't hear in church is not true for PR BC But it is true for a lot of churches

It is true for a lot of churches. Let's be honest In your standard quote -unquote

Evangelical church You're not going to hear these verses now in our church

We preach verse by verse through books the Bible including books the Bible that are not overly positive in the sense of being the easy ones

We're reading through Numbers right now. We read through Leviticus We talked about how to examine the leprous spot to see if there's hair in it.

Yeah, we read that and It's not always easy to do But the fact is the biggest weapon that we give

To our opponents the biggest weapon we give to the world is our own ignorance of the

Bible. I mean Think about Bart Ehrman's standard attacks that he uses

What are they all based on? assuming That Christians are gonna be utterly ignorant of textual criticism

They're gonna be utterly ignorant of all those little footnotes the bottom of their page is not gonna be concerned enough to read them and so they

Figure that the woman taking an adultery everyone's always believed that and when he points out that it's not in the earliest manuscripts

Then they're like once you've heard a believing discussion of these things and You know about the longer ending of Mark and you know about the percocet adultery and you know about first John 5 7 and and you know about father forgive them for they know not what they do and You're aware of these things then they don't have the same impact and So the biggest weapon that the world has

To fire our direction is our own ignorance our own ignorance. So obviously the more we know the

Bible familiar with the Bible Read the Bible know something about the background of the

Bible and the transmission of the Bible then the more offensive weapons we have because if someone comes along and thinks ah, here's what are you gonna do about this and You go.

Well, yeah, I was quite aware of that And if you thought about this that and the other thing now you have the opportunity of doing something

Let's look at these seven shocking Bible verses and let's see what shocks the world

Well, we have a nice little graphic here Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock

Psalm 137 9 Well never heard that one before Sadly there are probably some of the audience that are going that's in my

Bible. Yeah, well Then underneath basically murdering babies is a good time

Remember this is not a believing website. So this is where you sort of get used to But that's what they're gonna they're gonna say say

Basically, it's saying murdering babies is a good time Historical context the writer has been exiled from Babylon actually exiled to Babylon The Hebrew here is mournful.

This psalm is often set to music. I Didn't really provide much of a historical context did it?

No, no But then again how many of us could give a decent semi -accurate explanation of what happened at the fall of Jerusalem The Babylonian captivity

What happened when the Babylonians smashed Israelite children children of Judah against the rock

That would be helpful to know something about that and hence It would at least give you some background to deal with what are called the imprecatory

Psalms That's Psalm 137 is an imprecatory Psalm Where the psalmist prays for God's judgment to come upon the enemies of Israel It isn't murdering babies is a good time

But it is an imprecatory Psalm and there would be many now notice

It says what more conservative readers might say it's a metaphor We're in the babies are the sadness to the

Babylonian exile Who should be dashed against the rock of faith or dashing your sins against the rock of reason?

You know, what's sad is

This writer probably did find somebody who came up with those those responses Has nothing to do whatsoever with a meaningful exegesis of the text, but that He probably probably did find somebody who came up with something like that What more liberal readers might say noted

Hebrew Bible scholar Robert alter? Writes no moral justification can be offered for this notorious concluding line

All one can do is to recall the background of outraged feeling that triggers the conclusion So notice the liberal side gets a scholar because in the mind of the folks at buzzfeed .com

There really aren't any scholars on the other side now there are large number of discussions large number of discussions of The imprecatory

Psalms I remember he hasn't done it for a while.

No, I think about it, but I remember the first time I Heard pastor

Fry Preaching actually praying praying at the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church Now I've ever heard pastor Fry pray. He doesn't

He doesn't pray like they do in most evangelical churches and It was it was just one of the very first first sermons that I heard

That He said something along the lines of and Oh God Break the teeth of false teachers

Silence the false prophets in our land Break the teeth. That's good

Psalms language that's imprecatory Psalm stuff right there. It really is There's a bit a lot of discussions as to Can we pray the imprecatory

Psalms, I think that we can there's be a lot of people say no after Jesus We can't pray the imprecatory Psalms because they only have to do with national

Israel something. I don't see that that's the case. I Think we should be grieved over false teaching and false prophets in the church and the the tremendous damage that has been done

In their name and by their influence I was listening to a false teacher in the church this morning on the unbelievable radio program

I'll do I'll be perfectly honest with his name Steve Chalk and Oh, it was just just the smooth silky voice of unbelief clothed in that shallow shell of religiosity just oh my so Do we do we have to think through?

What it means that we are proclaiming the gospel to the whole world as to how we?

Consider the imprecatory Psalms. Well, of course But what's behind this text that is so offensive to the natural man is the fact that we are all sinners and we are all under the judgment of God and That death is the appropriate proper just punishment for sin for everyone now

I'll be perfectly honest with you. Here's a place where theology matters Because there's a bunch of Southern Baptists today that have signed a document that wouldn't have

Absolutely positively no Foundation as far as I can see we're dealing with the imprecatory

Psalms because they really don't believe in original sin anymore they really don't believe in original sin and So it really makes you wonder

How they could deal with something like this, but I leave that to them. I leave that to them Obviously the problem we face is that the unbeliever citing these things normally because they just pulled it out of a you know

They pulled it out of a internet citation. In fact, I Hope tomorrow Michael will bring up or I'll remember to Ask him he had a whole section in the book about math

Matthew Vines No, no, no, no, Justin Lee Justin Lee. Sorry Matthew Justin Lee Providing a miscitation of Robert Gagnon in his book and Michael did some looking and basically discovered that This is just sort of a meme that has developed.

It's it's somebody at some point in time Completely tore a section out of Gagnon that that if you just read what's before and after it

You'd know you're misusing it but they tore that out and now it's just being quoted quoted quoted quoted it's taken on a life of its own and They don't care that Gagnon has pointed out the error.

They're just quoting each other I have seen this there is this such a such a flood of pro -homosexual material coming out that it's sort of an incestuous intercitation of sources

To where you cite this guy and he says that guy and it just starts going around and it ends up looking like you have this huge body of Meaningful scholarship and it's it's not there at all

Um But being able to point these types of things out having the background to point that's that's where the problem is and it's very rarely

Able to be done in a brief period of time and unfortunately most conversations we have with people the world these days are very brief

Their their attention span and our attention spans about yay long and then it's like, oh that was too hard Let's go do something else.

Let's watch some TV or something like that. All right, let's look at the next one. Oh No, I Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

She is to keep silent first Timothy. It's that verse It's the verse that makes

Rachel held Evans scream in the darkness So basically

Thou shalt maketh me a sandwich is the is the female authors interpretation of this

Obviously it has to do with the church and roles in the church and there are people who argue that have authority over is meant only to you can tell whether you're reading an egalitarian or Complementarian by how they interpret that one word first Timothy 212

And all this all the stuff coming out pro -homosexual is all written by egalitarians, obviously that this is or to have authority as it is a special kind of authority

Not the kind that would preclude female Eldership and so on and so forth

But historical context vast majority of scholars believe that despite tradition first Timothy wasn't actually written by the

Apostle Paul notice This is where this is where guys My my friends from Biola who are constantly using the majority of scholars argument

This is where you comes back and bites you The vast majority of scholars believe that despite tradition first Timothy wasn't written by the

Apostle Paul But in the letter Paul writes Timothy Who's now pastoring a church deficits giving him instructions for running the place?

The chapter also urges women to dress modestly and learn in quietness and in full submission now What's offensive about this is obviously this is a feminist and so You don't believe

God has the right to determine such things and so you're offended What more conservative readers might say though most modern scholars and pastors interpret this verse a bit more leniently?

Many churches and religious institutions that history have used this first to bar women from leadership positions ranging from ordination to teaching

Sunday school well Okay, what more liberal readers might say this verse the verse was directed at a specific church context perhaps feminist women congregants

Now here. This is exactly Exactly what you get out of vines and Exactly what you get out of Brownson in their attack upon complementarianism.

This is almost word -for -word. This is this is the boilerplate this is just it's all it's out there and This is the boilerplate

The verse was directed a specific church context perhaps Feminist women congregants who were you surping authority radical at the time or women who were attempting to spread

Gnostic doctrine? Some also note that the Greek word had but that hadn't looked at the bottom to see that.

This is it really the boilerplate Authentic Oh to have authority as a long and weird history of meanings including committing suicide

Murdering one's parents and being sexually aggressive and that shouldn't be interpreted some sort of administrative injunction today so there's the standard boilerplate

Egalitarian Argumentation that has certainly won the day in liberal denominations

And they're not even aware that there are still some of us Who might actually believe that their actual roles for women and men in the church?

Jeremiah 19 9 someone had fun making all these graphics up didn't they and I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of Their daughters and shall eat the flesh of their neighbors in the siege and the distress

With which their enemies and those who seek their life will afflict them Jeremiah 19 9 basically your disobedience

So God will make you eat your own kids Historical background this chapter God relays a prophecy to Jeremiah of a destroyed

Israel using a smashed potter's vessels analogy Israel had reunited a century before Jeremiah was active the cannibalism

Reference is an almost verbatim quotation of Deuteronomy 28 53 which threatened that Israel would one day come this terrible point if it disobeyed the law

Not an overly bad analysis, and it's really good

That the writer recognizes the signal passage of Deuteronomy 28 and 29

I Think most Christians should be much more familiar with Deuteronomy 28 and 29 than they are it may be uncomfortable to read

But it's important to read also need to look at Exodus's version of the same

Concept and that is blessings for obedience curses for disobedience and Yes, sir

I just kind of wondering what their major objection would be here to this and of course the other psalm passage about dashing their babies against the rocks

Holy know how many people How does she feel about abortion this author? Oh, I'm sure she's very much for it and and I mean, but but that's but that's that's a post partum person and We all know that that's what makes a person a person

Oh, okay. Yeah, thank you. You're welcome What more conservative ears might might say these terrible acts really happened as a result of Israel turning its back on God well, yeah but it was part of God's just punishment on Israel for Generations of Sin generations of rebellion generations of abuse of God's grace

Yeah, I'm believers don't like judgment. Oh, that's bad stuff bad stuff wrath.

Mm -hmm What more liberal readers might say the author of Jeremiah was picking up on the Deuteron Deuteron a mystic themes of Joshua judges

Samuel and Kings Which put forth the twin ideas of a grand nation night by God and then subjected to destruction for just disobeying him

What's worth historian Flavius Josephus reports the Jews starving in Jerusalem during the Roman siege of a 70

CE Ate their own children. Well, yes, he does actually mention that number four

Now so what's what's sort of been hold on? What's what's sort of been the theme so far is we don't want a holy

God. We don't want anything about sin We don't want God determining gender roles in the church

Because we are good liberal Westerners and we don't want anyone to rule over us basically

Number four Slaves accept the authority of your masters with all deference

Not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh Or it is to your credit if being aware of God you endure pain while suffering unjustly

Basically slavery rocks. Well, that's about as stupid a comment as you could possibly make

But it's the slavery is your historic context dressed to Christians of all social strata Facing social and or physical persecution early church likely under the reign of Domitian from 81 to 96

CE No That's not the context and it was earlier than that and While it is talking about persecution

It is also recognized in the fact that a lot of the Christians were slaves But obviously the message of freedom in Christ had a tremendous appeal

To the slave and of course as Paul said God reveals his wisdom to the weak things the world rather than to mighty

What more concerted readers might say submission to masters even cruel ones from the Greek word meaning crooked is

Commendable as an extension of the command in Luke to love one's enemies one's response to unjust treatment

It'd be an opportunity to praise God theologically We see the author giving the idea of suffering a moral import as Christ suffered his wounds so slaves are to bear theirs of perseverance

Yeah, somewhat but also the fact that Christianity As it went out into the world was not limited to a political program of overthrowing slavery there were unfortunately there's in the minds of the vast majority of people we talked vast

Majority people took as soon as you say slavery they think of only one thing what they have seen in southern

American slavery from the 1850s That's just automatic almost none of them have any concept of the historical existence of slavery in almost every culture and And The appropriateness of that did he just say that I did real simple

Economies that could not produce Sufficient goods services and food for the population in a given area.

All right Something happens your crops fail Investments fail war famine plague locusts frogs, whatever

You you cannot any longer provide enough food to live only option

Sell yourself into slavery only option to live Only option

The one there you die. It was the ancient equivalent of the social security net

Except the only value that you had was your own body. Now, obviously

Roman slavery differed from biblical slavery and Biblical slavery was

Wildly circumscribed by law. That's why we have to read so much in Genesis Exodus of Vegas numbers are done that addresses it and of course in biblical slavery

You could only be in slavery for six years then the year of Jubilee comes along and you were to be set free

So there was a tremendous amount of justice in that and There were many times where that was the only thing you could do to save your life now is there a extension of Peter's words and Paul says this very same thing to where we could

Appropriately understand the command to now have relevance to our employers.

I think so. I Think you have to recognize what the difference is. There's not the employer doesn't have the same level of The same level of control can't demand the same level of obedience

That a modern employer Would be able to do or should be able to do though.

Some employers come awful close So we would recognize some differences there and in fact there were certain responsibilities that the slave owner had to slave especially under the

Hebrew system that might not transfer over directly to a modern situation with an employee, but the point is that If you're going to make the demand and this is the demand that men that the unbelievers are making that we need to recognize the demand that unbelievers are making

Is that What you should what you should find in the

Bible is A Message of anti -slavery from the start and So What you should find is that the gospel could only go into those places that were

Socially ready for it to go to those places. Otherwise, it would have to come in and completely overthrow the social order

Which is basically what you're having with Sharia The Sharia law

Comes into direct and immediate conflict with the current majority law in a non -islamic country and That takes us all all the way back to Acts chapter 15 and things like that.

So If the gospel is going to be a gospel, it's going to go out to the whole world then

It cannot be associated with a particular economic system now

Does the New Testament say if you can be free be free if you're a slave owner you treat them with justice Did it lay all the foundation and the the basis for the overthrow of slavery sure it did

Might there come a day in our own world where Well, there already are places where people struggle to have any type of survival at all

But might that happen even here again someday who knows? but scripture certainly gives us a

Basis for Understanding that I'm gonna run out of time here. I just realized it's 248 number 5 real quickly

A certain young man was following him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him But he left linen cloth and ran off naked really

Wow, it's a historical event So basically there was a secret naked disciple in addition to usual 12 really honestly

Come on That's just really Ridiculous I'm not gonna spend much time tonight

Various people attempt to identify the man historically, but it's truly impossible ascertain You might be part of a literary motive created by the author c mark 65 which depicts a man a white robe outside the tomb

Telling the women that Jesus was risen and which uses the same Greek word for young man blah blah blah blah blah

It's irrelevant but it has I Mean the whole thing about being naked is really honestly.

This is supposed to mean something Maybe he he would Conservative readers might say it's the author mark himself or he could be a metaphor for the disciples who are now naked in the world after abandoning

Jesus That's the conservative one No, no, don't don't think so number six.

Oh, yeah. I like like this one I like this one Elijah turned around looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the

Lord then two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the second Kings to 23 through 24 basically bear attack in the

Bible on kids Store context verse 23 the prophet Elisha is on his way to Bethel But a bunch of you start teasing him go on up you bald head

Not only were they mocking his lack of hair, but to go on up as a jab at Elisha's ascension to have Elisha's ascension to heaven

What I think you mean Elijah, but anyway

Which occurred early in the chapter God then sends a bunch of bears? Right. Okay to rough them up What conservative readers might say

God's judgment on the gang of youths was fair as they were teasing a prophet God were likely to set out to rob and possibly assault him now

They're sinners They're under the wrath of God. They're mocking the prophet of God which means they have no interest in obeying the law of God and so God brings

Immediate judgment upon the seat. This is what happens when you live in a permissive society where God has withheld his judgment for so long is

That Wow. Well, we don't have to worry about judgment and we don't like any God who will bring immediate judgment

But the fundamental problem here is they don't believe that there's any sin worth judgment anyway

They don't believe in a holy God. They don't believe that man's Actions are a stench in the nostrils of a holy

God and therefore when they see God acting Justly in his holiness.

They are offended and that's what you have here Located in its literary context.

It's a brutal fable meant to convey the idea that God should not be mocked Well, okay then of course the this is

The funny thing was you'll never hear about this in church Doesn't the same website do stuff like saying that that's all you hear in conservative churches is

Leviticus 18 22. You shall not lie to the male as of the woman. It is to eva and We're gonna have an interesting discussion of to eva tomorrow with with Michael Brown Basically being gay is punishable by death well, if you really want to do that when you should go into Leviticus 20 because that that's where the death penalty is specifically mentioned, but Leviticus and it's so -called holiness code had a long period of transmission and editing

Probably reaching its final form in post -exilic Israel. Well, that's what you're gonna get at most theological seminaries do folks

The number of us who still believe what Jesus believed about the law very small The book comprises both the priestly cloak code and the holiness code

Which both contain instructions for priests in Israel like to lead pure lives in front of God this code for sexual ethics in Leviticus 18

Also includes prohibitions against incest bestiality and sex of the menstruating woman. Yes, it does what more conservative readers might say to be fair many churches have abandoned a literal interpretation of this verse as the same

Levitical holiness code Forbids eating pork and wearing clothing made from two different fibers while someone's been watching the

West Wing But in both Christian Jewish tradition these verses have been used historically as a blanket prohibition against homosexual behavior

We don't want to talk about you know What the rest of the Old Testament says we don't want to talk about Judaism at the time of Christ We don't want to talk about what

Jesus taught about marriage and sexuality We don't you know Don't want to trace these things into the New Testament into the

New Testament But that's the background of toe of arson a quite days and I don't want to do any of that Um, here's one evangelical commentary that argues that ceremonial laws like the one prohibiting consumption of pork are no longer valid But that the moral law is like the one prohibiting second homosexual behavior still are well, duh.

Thank you. I'm glad what is what's the What's what is the

This one here. Oh, it's karm. Hey karm. Congratulations karm. You got a you got a link

From the BuzzFeed folks karm got it What more liberal readers might say the prohibition of gay sex must be read in the historical context the time

There was really no contemporary equivalent of a loving here. It is boy. This is just boilerplate boilerplate

No, no, nothing new here There was really no contemporary equivalent of a loving homosexual relationship like we have today much ancient same -sex activity involved pederasty

In addition male seed was prized as valuable for reducing offspring and the activity of the waste it was frowned upon so on and so forth

If If you are

Stumbled and we can go ahead and take that down if if you are stumbled By the assertion that The Bible really can't address loving committed monogamous homosexual relationships then

You haven't learned yet to start doing Presuppositional analysis of arguments because there is a big huge assumption there.

First of all, it's it's historically false. I Mean just on the face of it the

Apostle Paul would have been familiar with a wide variety of Homosexual concepts

Tarsus was a big city Secondly It's an argument against the sufficiency of scripture obviously, which these folks aren't going to believe in anyways

Because the authors are considered just to be limited in their understandings and things like that Third if the homosexual argument is true, and that is that they're made this way

Then there were just as many good moral Monogamous Desiring homosexual men and women in that days today.

That's one of the big problems I have here is that you want to say well Jesus never said anything about it. Well if Jesus was

God he knew The 3 % of the population were this way

Why didn't he seek to free them? Why didn't he seek to? Establish marriage rights for them.

Why did he just go with the Jewish way of looking at things? You just you can't end up believing in the deity of Christ and this stuff at the same time

It's just they don't go together So you're but of course the the real problem is this it assumes

That there is such a thing in the context of Biblical morality and ethics as a loving monogamous homosexual relationship and there isn't

Not only is that the small minority of the male homosexual population but the

Bible does not have that category because the Bible is a whole and Leviticus 18 and 20 is there and Romans 1 is there and 1st

Corinthians 6 is there and so what you'll find Vines and Brownson and it's just it's it's cookie cutter all the way across is we're gonna read in this this category and Make you deal with it, even though it's directly opposed and then they use that actually to undercut the

Bible's teaching Against homosexuality. It's just it's just so Isagetical and a contextual and we'll be talking about that tomorrow.

Did we get a response? Dr. Brown says he can do the show anytime after 4 p .m.

Our time All right. Let's let's try to go directly for 4 p .m. Then because that's

So we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna say right now. We're gonna go for 4 p .m. Tomorrow For Michael Brown on the dividing line, he's going

I forget where he's going overseas next week or something like that. So He's he's gonna really doing this out of the goodness of his heart just for our audience

So we will we will do it at 4 o 'clock tomorrow afternoon 7 o 'clock

Eastern Daylight Time We'll have Michael Brown on thanks for listening to the program today. We will be back with you tomorrow

And as I said next week On Tuesday, we'll be talking about Molin ism again with our young Molinist friend who wants to explain why

I am the sound of that One hand clapping. There you go. There's Can't even hear that.