Answering Jewish Questions

Somebody contacted Striving for Eternity from a Jewish background and claims he has undeniable proof that the

Bible, or at least the New Testament, could not be written by God. Is he right?

We're going to address that on Apologetics Live. This is

Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your challenging questions about God and the

Bible. I'm looking at the wrong camera. I went up there, but we adjusted it to something a little bit down here.

So, temporary change. So I got to look down this way now. But thank you very much for coming in.

And as I said in the intro, as the topic today, answering

Jewish questions. And we got a lot of them. Actually, six pages is what he ended up sending us.

It was originally just one page of some comments. And then he basically said,

I'm going to get back to you with a little bit more. And we got six pages, but it came in so late.

I know I didn't get a chance to look at all of them, Drew. I think you did not as either. No, but we're going to get through the main one.

We'll see. Is this undeniable proof that the

New Testament could not be written by God? That's the challenge. Drew, I don't know if you and I are up to this.

You know, the thing about it. Yeah, it's these are nothing new, right?

It's the same objections that are brought by atheists as well when they try to disprove the

Bible and show contradictions. So it's nothing new. It isn't. But, you know, maybe for some, it's the first time they're going to hear it.

But let's start before we get dive into that. First off, thank you very much for last week.

You and your co -host from A Matter of Theology. Or is he just the host and you're just I don't

I don't get it. It's just the two of you started it together. Now it's just Chris Hough. Whatever. You guys got into a fight.

I don't get it anyway. Basically, I started it. I founded it.

I brought him on. I turned it over to him. And then I can't because you weren't going to podcast anymore, but you're still podcasting.

Okay. Okay. I can't keep up with it. I'm always I'm in and out. I'm in and out, you know?

Yes. So, so here's the thing. We're going to look into some of these things, but you guys did a great job last week.

It was kind of like a long version of A Matter of Theology. So that was cool.

Yeah, the I'm I did hear you play the comment where someone said that they expected it to be a subpar show because I wasn't here.

Do you really think I'm going to put people in charge of the show even when they do it complete and utter

Matter of Theology takeover of the show? Do you really think I'm going to bring people in that are not of the standard that we have here?

Of course, we will. You know, and the crazy thing about that is is Chris and I aren't strangers to the show.

We've been coming on the show for what two years maybe and you know, but that also just shows the loyalty and love that people have for you in this show.

Well, I appreciate that. Yeah. I mean, it's a thing where as we as we look at things as we as we recognize the fact that every one of us that you know, we have people that have different styles and yet something to offer and that's you know, you and Chris are a different style than than even you and I yeah when we're together it's it's and that's good.

So I thank you guys for doing that while I was gone. Very happy to do it, even though I would have rather seen both of you there at cruciform with me, you know, that's

I okay. I got a brag on cruciform because you know, I was originally a speaker.

I was actually going to be opening up the conference. But even though I pulled out, I think this cruciform conference was the best conference that was there and your message was dynamite.

It was an amazing message on Puritan evangelism, which was really just Puritan open -air preaching and it was great.

I there's I mean, I literally was joking that more than half of my message was on the cutting room floor.

Okay, it was I never even got into which was a big thing. Okay, here's for folks to get a little background.

Here's here's what it's like when you're preaching. I had 20 pages of notes Puritan quotes and notes and I'm going through and time is just escaping and I get there and I'm looking.

I look at the clock and I go, oh my I'm like on page 5 and 20 minutes has gone by.

I gotta skip some like zip, zip, zip, zip right through a bunch of the notes. What ends up happening?

I skipped over a major thing that I wanted to bring up on Puritan evangelism. So why don't

I do it here? Great idea drew. I'm glad you brought that up. So that's what

I'm here for. One of the things about Puritan evangelism that I didn't get a chance or I just should have made a like a highlight.

So I wouldn't forget it was this. One of the ways the Puritans evangelized.

I mentioned that much of the Puritan evangelism is within the idea of the church because everyone attended church and they were mostly unbelievers and the pastors knew that and so they preached in a way that preached the gospel as well.

That's one of the ways they they evangelize. But the other thing they did, this is a really neat thing. Puritans, some

Puritan pastors used to have family booths and the way it would be is that the parents had their back to the preacher.

So that the children are looking at the preaching and they're looking at their children to make sure they're paying attention.

Neat. But one of the things that the Puritans would do is to the preachers would meet weekly with each family church with every each family in the church and that was their discipleship time, which also includes evangelism.

So the preachers would go house to house and in that process, they would disciple.

So they basically take the message they preach that week and make sure that the family understood that and that was a big part of their evangelism as well as they're in someone's house.

And so I didn't get time for that. And there's a whole lot that there was a person who came up to me and said, man, that was so good.

Is there any chance I can have your notes? And I'm like, well, I because I print a copy just as my iPad doesn't work.

And I'm like, well, sure. Here you go. Realize they're like Mark Driscoll sign them and give. Well, no, it's not that.

And I mean, I said to the gentleman, I just understand that my notes are nothing but quotations from other books and Puritans and things like that.

So you don't have anything that's original for me in those notes that I had there. And so literally 20 pages of just quotations.

So and that what you're talking about there, that's basically what Richard Baxter talks about in his book,

The Reformed Pastor. It was basically his method of discipleship and evangelizing people in his church, because I think

I think Richard Baxter had a congregation of about seven to eight hundred people. And every day he was meeting with families, catechizing, discipling every single day.

That's right. And so what you end up seeing is and one thing with this camera angle, as I look at my

Bible, it looks I look like I'm looking far away, but it's just the way it is. Sorry. The the reality is, as we we think about things.

The Puritans did much of their evangelism, you know, in that style of preaching.

And that's why so much of what I focused on was preaching. But here's the thing, and this is something people don't really think about and realize, is when we look at this and we examine the fact of, okay, let's take a look at, you know, what we have with the

Puritans and their preaching style. Their preaching of the scriptures were very evangelistic.

And that's the thing we have to realize. Yeah, that's also how preaching should be just in general, because part of the command in that we're given is to do the work of an evangelist.

And so when we're preaching, we understand in our congregations, we have believers, but we also have non -believers or we have people who think themselves to be believers who are not believers.

And so we have to do the work of an evangelist. Correct. And so, yeah, you were missed at at the cruciform.

You know, next year, you'll have to make sure you're there. Just saying. I was texting Brandon the whole time. That is a great conference.

I love, you know, what folks may not realize, I'm going to encourage people to make sure you make cruciform next year.

Here's what Brandon is doing. Brandon is trying to get the next generation of preachers, the guys who are still young.

They're not known yet, but they're probably going to be within five, ten years.

Yeah. Nathaniel Jolly. Yeah, excellent. He puts himself down, but he is an excellent preacher.

I thoroughly enjoyed his message. And Kevin Hay is good.

This is the first time I preached with Kevin Hay in like six months, I think.

Yeah, because he did the cessationist conference. That's where we first spoke with each other.

And he opened that conference too, didn't he? I think because he defined cessationism. Amazing.

It was awesome. So, I mean, that's the thing. Like, I would encourage you guys to check out cruciform next year because these are the guys.

That you're going to be hearing about and you're going to be listening to. And you're going to get to hear them when you can get to talk to them in a small setting.

This is what we used to do with our conferences at Striving for Eternity. When we started, we didn't have a green room.

That was one requirement. If someone needs a green room, they weren't invited to speak. And we did a conference where you can get to speak with the speakers.

I remember someone sitting there and he's like, Man, I just sat down and had lunch with Phil Johnson.

And he was amazed. And the thing that blew him away was Phil walked over and said, Can I sit with you? You know, it wasn't the other way around.

So he couldn't believe it. So yeah, I mean, that's what we tried to do. And that's what

Brandon's trying to do. And that's one of the best time too, is the times where you can have fellowship.

Speakers can have fellowship with one another, but then you also have fellowship with the people who are attending there as well.

Yeah, it is a great time. Yeah. So thanks for the takeover, by the way.

You know, just you and Chris did an excellent job, which I expected. It wasn't a surprise to me, just saying.

You've been listening to us for several years. I have. You're well vetted.

So no, but it was good. And so what we want to do and folks, if you want to come in to ask questions,

I should have said this at the beginning as I usually do, but I forgot. But we were here to answer your questions.

This is this is hey, these are my office hours. You want to talk to me? Ask me anything about God in the

Bible or anything else. Just go to ApologeticsLive .com scroll down till you see a duck icon.

That's for StreamYard. Click on that. Join us so that you can ask your question. That is the way we prefer to do it.

Even though the person who sent us this email, you want to come on and do that.

Okay, but that aside, let's were you going to say something? No, it's just it's funny.

Okay, here we go. Jason Cave says great show last week. See, see,

I expected it to be a great show. So I kind of took this gentleman's email.

And I attempted to summarize at least because he drew as you saw.

We had a couple back and forth emails where he was kind of giving his questions in pieces, right, which was hard.

And that's why I emailed him and said, you know, do you have any like, can you kind of put this together, which he did?

And we have a six page document that I just, you know, didn't get to. And actually

I meant to start off the show by saying to our audience, some people may be like Andrew, you're in a t -shirt.

We're not used to seeing you in a t -shirt. Some people may know that, you know, my background,

I have years of cybersecurity background doing stuff with technology.

And today is a day where I actually, I still am involved with one of the largest internet providers in the world does a software symposium for about, oh, three or four thousand people and I'm involved in helping to run that whole thing.

I still am involved with their technical program committee. So today was the day we had that.

I literally got home from that, had to rush here. So I'm still wearing my t -shirt from that software symposium.

And so it's one of the things that identify me, you know, I get the black one, all the volunteers get white, but as a chairman of their committee,

I get, you know, yeah. So the reason I'm in a t -shirt is because I literally got home, did not, you know,

I had to grab a quick slice of pizza on the way because there was no time. So just putting it out there for, it looks so unprofessional of you.

Yeah, I figured it was better to be on time in a t -shirt. Talking about unprofessional, like,

I mean, I've got a backwards hat on and, you know, flash my tattoos every once in a while.

So I'm going to read through, this is my cutting and pasting of this person's email.

So it's not one email and I'm going to let you know, I'm going to butcher his first name.

Probably because I'm really good at butchering names. English and I are not friends.

Okay, I'm just saying. I joke with people that my first language was basic.

I moved on to Pascal, C, C++, Java, JavaScript, awk, and if you guys, anyone that knows what

I just said, you're a computer programmer. You have a background in IT and everyone else is just going whatever,

Andrew, I think you're speaking in tongues. No, I'm not. I mean, they do say English is a really hard language.

Yeah, it's hard. I mean, even for people who speak English. I think Scala is way easier to learn.

I'm just saying. And Java is much better, but I'm not talking about the drink you have in the morning. So, all right, so let me read this.

I want it's, I'm going to read what I have summarized. It'll be one page and actually, I was going to share it, but now

I probably won't because it won't look good on the screen. It's too small font. All right, I'll just read this. And then we can deal with this and this is the first of several objections.

He actually has needs or has. So, KT wants me to speak in Hebrew.

She's saying, you know, Andrew needs to speak in Hebrew for us. Sure. I will. Yeah, we are.

There you go. I did it. Yeah, your pronunciation was a little off, but what he just tried to do was, you're going to meet chapter 6, which was close, but no cigar.

You want to try cleaning that up and we'll give you another shot at it? No, I'll let you go ahead and take it.

Hear O Israel. Our Lord, our God, our Lord is one. Yeah, see there. I just said, oh, wait, was that?

That was in English though. Okay. In Hebrew. Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Echad.

See, that is what I said. I just didn't say Adonai. I said Yahweh. Well, and you also didn't have, so the

CH sound, a little bit of a stronger than here. So, you got to pronounce, like, get ready to spit and then you say, hi, that's hi, you know, that's sort of what.

Echad. I thought I said Echad. There you go. Now, you got it. It may have been because I just took a drink and my palate was a little.

Okay, if, hey, that's good. At least it sounded better than, you know, the Hebrew Israelites with their fake

Hebrew. Okay, hold on. I'll do it again just for the people. Okay. Sh'ma Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Echad.

There you go. Okay. This is a little better. Okay. So, then we'll have to,

I'll do something easy to see how your translation is. Baruch Atah Adonai. What's that?

Okay. So, this is the way most prayers begin. Right. Blessed is the Lord. Now, you would say

Baruch Atah Yahweh. Right. That's the way it would typically. Because I'm thinking about a prayer.

So, when I was in the vineyard and we used to take communion, we would say Baruch Atah Adonai. No, Baruch Atah Adonai.

And then we would go into. Well, there's a lot of different ones that people would do after that. Because it would change.

But that's the way many of the prayers would start. But all right. Let's look at this.

He says, hello. My name is, I think it's, and forgive me for, I know he's going to listen to this because I told him that we would do this, but, and he supposedly watches, but we'll, you know, he said, my name is

Ben Zion. I think, B -E -N -T -Z -I -O -N.

So, I don't know if the T is pronounced like Ben Zion or Bent Zion, but hello. My name is

Ben Zion Eshelberg. I am a Jew from Queens, New York.

I have been listening to your podcast and have been struck by some major misunderstandings of the

Old Testament. I was wondering if you could answer some of my questions about the misquotes and wrong understandings of the

Bible as well as obvious contradictions in the

New Testament. If it's inspired by God, and by the way,

God is G -D. That's one of the things you'll see with Jewish people. They don't want to use

God's name in vain. Just like we're talking about Yahweh versus Adonai. Adonai is replaced when you see it.

So when I'm saying Baruch Atah Adonai, it's actually Baruch Atah Yahweh, which is like.

And the combination is how you get Jehovah. Yeah. Well, you'll sometimes see

Lord God and it'll be either, you know, Adonai and Yahweh together or Elohim and Yahweh together.

So he says, if it is inspired by God, there can't be even one mistake.

So if you can't answer these questions, the book and all its stories are worthless.

I'm really interested in hearing some of your answers. So please respond.

And I asked him, what did I said that I was wrong? So his response was then this. I didn't mean you particularly, but Christians as a whole.

I was particularly surprised with you because I heard you say that you grew up Jewish.

Just one example that I remember off the top of my head is that you defend the claim that the virgin birth is prophesied in the

Old Testament, even though the word is completely mistranslated. Your defense was that they were relying on the spittuogen, which was translated by the rabbis.

You know full well that only the first five books were translated by the

Jews. So why did you say that? Also, why would a book written by the

Spirit of God need to rely on a translation? The word clearly doesn't mean virgin.

Now notice he's yet to give us the verse, but he kind of did there, but we'll get to that. Okay. So he says this happens all over the place where verses are mistranslated to take completely out of context to support

Jesus. Would you agree that if anyone claimed the

New Testament makes that is demonstrated to be a misquote or mistake from the

Old Testament, then we can't rely on any of the New Testament. How can you, if, and I don't know what word he meant there, just U -T -S.

How can you, if something, clearly not the word of God.

We can go through many examples if you'd like. One more for now.

How is Jesus the Messiah if he isn't from the lineage of David?

Every Jew in the world knows our lineage follows the father and not the mother.

If God is the father, he isn't from David. And although the

New Testament tried to trace Mary's ancestry to David, although in a contradictory way, it's irrelevant because it goes by the father.

I was thinking about it. And this is another email. I was thinking about it after I emailed you last night.

There are three things I deduced when I see the New Testament misquote or mistake the

Old Testament to make it appear to prove Jesus. One, you can't trust anything in the rest of the book because its author isn't honest.

Two, it's clearly not written or inspired by God if there are mistakes. And three, the fact that the author has to manufacture evidence indicates he doesn't have the truth on his side.

Otherwise, why resort to that? I'm curious what positive evidence convinced you to believe in Christianity in light of all the mistakes, lack of evidence and failing to fulfill what the

Messiah is supposed to do and complete inconsistencies theologically with the

Old Testament. I don't understand the draw to believe this. So that's kind of the summarization. Let's deal with these if we could one by one.

So let me start with that first paragraph. He says in here, I was wondering if you can answer some questions about misquotes of the

Bible. He said if it is inspired by God, there can't be even one mistake.

Well, I'm going to agree with that. He brought that up twice. I agree with it. This is an argument I make against Islam with the

Quran. The Quran has errors that are definitional. What do I mean by this? When we end up seeing things like in the

New Testament, you have a case where there might be two people that were demon -possessed and one author mentions two, one author means one.

And I think it's more with blind people or you have ten lepers and whatever it might be.

One speaks, but the other nine don't speak. But that doesn't mean ten aren't there, just because one speaks.

Right. That's right. And that's actually what you would see. One of the things we see in eyewitness testimony, and you could see this in any courtroom, anyone that does investigations, they will end up looking at the fact that you're going to have, so Drew and I see a car accident.

I focus, maybe I'm more detail -oriented, so I say to the officer, well, there were three cars.

What happened was one stopped short and because of that, the one in the car behind them stopped short and the car behind that one slammed into the car in front of him.

So I mentioned three cars, but the officer asked Drew and Drew just says, well, there was a car that stopped short and another one slammed right into it.

Does that mean there weren't three cars there? No. It's that Drew was being more specific and focused in on the two that were in the car accident and not the third that wasn't in the accident and kept driving.

This happens in eyewitness testimony. In fact, if you don't have that, people start to question whether it's eyewitness testimony or a manufactured story.

In other words, one of the things any good detective does is when they're trying to find out what happened, they separate people immediately.

Why? So that they can't agree with the story. One of the things that any detective knows, if your stories line up perfectly, someone's been talking.

Exactly. You have that happen. Okay. Now, here's another thing and this will be helpful for a lot of people and I've talked to some about this.

If you look at the book of Luke and you look at the birth of Jesus and when

Jesus had to be presented before the temple and everything, who was

Luke's eyewitness account? It had to be Mary. Because everything that was going on when

Jesus was being presented at the temple, well, that priest had already died because what did he say?

I can now die. Now that I've seen the Lord, I can now die. Joseph is either really old in age or he's probably already passed on.

And so the only one left is Mary to give that account of what happened. So Luke in that moment has the ultimate eyewitness.

And that's the only way he would have gotten that information. Yeah. And so that's the whole thing with eyewitness testimony.

There's going to be certain things to look for. In fact, I'll recommend a book on this if you want. Cold Case Christianity from J.

Warner Wallace. Jim wrote this book really as a cold case detective as one of his, he's a leading expert when it comes to eyewitness testimony as a police detective.

So that would be good if you want to learn more about that. But the Quran has a definitional error.

In other words, the Quran refers to the Trinity as the father, the mother, and the son.

That's a wrong definition. When in the Quran, Allah is supposedly speaking and says to Jesus, did

I ever say that you are God or your mother is God? Well, Christians don't believe

Mary is God. Even the Catholics who venerate her and give her attributes of deity would deny that she's

God. So that's not, you know, and most, by the way, most

Muslims will turn because there was one cultic group, a very, very fraction of a group of Christianity that was in the area where Muhammad was because they were kicked out of the kingdom of the empire because of their heresy.

And they were in that area that did teach that Mary must be God as well. And so Muslims will always turn to that.

Well, if the writer of the Quran is someone who is, well, all -knowing, don't you think he would know that's a fringe group and not the whole group?

Just saying, so that's a definitional error. You know, when the

Quran says that the seed of the man is in the small of the back and not the testicles,

I think an all -knowing being would know the difference between the small of the back and the testicle.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he would be. So those are definitional things.

So if the New Testament is misquoting, has a definitional error,

I agree with him, Ben Zion, I agree with him.

Then that would disprove the New Testament. So the question is, does it do that?

So he's bringing up Isaiah 714. So let's read this.

So it says, Therefore, the Lord himself will give to you a sign.

Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and you shall call his name

Emmanuel. Now, this is the passage he's referring to because he's saying it's a misquote and you're seeing it in his text.

He's saying the word version is a mistranslation.

So let's deal with it. And let me just, I know we had the other thing that we had ready to share and I was all set up, but I'm going to share something else because it'd be more fitting.

So I'm going to bring this up so folks can see. Now, let me explain what this is.

This is on the left. Most of your screen is what's called the

Spituagin. This is a Greek translation of the Hebrew. The middle that you have there is the

Hebrew and on the right is the English Standard Version. So I just read from you to you from the

English Standard Version. Now you see what's highlighted. Those are the so the highlighted ones there are your

Greek and your Hebrew and then the English. All right, and I'm doing this because I want you to see

I just I want you to be able to to see what is happening with this as we look at it.

Okay, because as we examine this, this is the thing that he's saying this word in the

Hebrew. I'll bring this up. This is a word study of their of that and you can see right here.

It means a young woman. That is the literal translation of Alma.

Now you could see it's a girl youthful spouse recently married.

So someone who's who's recently married if she's married, she's recently married or a virgin. And so the reason this term can mean a virgin is because it was an unmarried woman.

So it was typically if it was speaking of a married woman, she just got married.

So it's one that hasn't consummated. But that and I'm just the reason

I bring this up is you can see all the different Greek lexicons that will translate it that way.

Okay, by the way, I'll just show you this is it is used in the Hebrew nine times at least in the in the

ESV six of those nine are translated as virgin.

Okay one. It's it's it's girl and then one at two times. It's transliterated.

So now someone will say well, yes, you you translated it virgin because of the fact that you're trying to prove

Jesus that's would be you know, his argument. Okay, let's work with that.

He's saying that we mistranslated now a mistranslation.

By the way doesn't prove the Bible's not written by God. Okay, he's saying it's a mistranslation and that's what proves it's it's not from God.

So a mistranslation is a translation. We do not argue from translations, right?

We're going to argue from the Hebrew. So Ben Zion the question for you to think about is does the word

Alma only mean a young woman? Could it mean a virgin?

Just so you think about because if it can mean a virgin if that is within the range of meanings of the word.

Then it wouldn't be a mistranslation. So let's let's continue.

Why do we he mentions about using the Spituagin? He says your defense was that you're relying on the

Spituagin which is really a translation by the rabbis. I'll agree with that.

But then he says, you know full well, the first five books were translated by Jews. So why would you say that?

Because I the Spituagin is actually completely translated by Jewish people.

So let me explain what the Spituagin is Spituagin before the time of Jesus and that becomes very important before the time of Christ.

They took the Hebrew scriptures translated into the regular common language of the day common

Greek and they translated it really for the Hellenistic Jews.

The Hellenistic Jewish people who did not know Hebrew, but they spoke

Greek. So it was a translation just like we have an English translation today.

Many people don't speak Greek and Hebrew and therefore we need to translate it into English for people to understand and even with that as English language changes, we update it and come up with better translations.

What we find more manuscripts whether the English language changes things like this. So I say that to say before the time of Jesus, we had rabbis translating the

Hebrew text into Greek and that's what the Spituagin is. So if we go back to what we're looking at here, we go back to this and we see this

Hebrew word Alma. It ends up being translated into Greek.

So let's look that Greek word up and we have that right here. Now, this is very different because Pathanos is me.

It means a virgin or maiden. This one's more specific. So this is not meaning a young woman, but specifically a virgin and you're seeing as you see the usage, it's a virgin, a chaste person, an unmarried person.

Why? Because it assumes that once they're married, they consummate it. So this has a more specific meaning.

And as we look at that, the way at least is translated in ESV 14 out of the 15 times it's used.

It's referring to a virgin where the one time it refers to someone who's chaste. Okay. So now what do we see?

Well, what we end up seeing here is that when the rabbis, this, these are not

Christians, when the rabbis before the time of Jesus were doing the translation, they felt that the most, the best word to use was not the

Greek word for a young maiden or young woman, but for a virgin.

There's two different words in Greek where there's not two different words in Hebrew. So they were more specific.

And this is the thing. These were Jewish rabbis before the time of Christ. So, now

I'm going to get, he makes an argument here that I want to get to in a bit, but where he basically says that we're trying to fit

Jesus in. So let's hold that because I'm going to, I'm going to flip that on him on Ben Zion.

So the argument that I'm making, and I want to be clear with this, is not that I think that the spittuogen is inspired.

I never made that claim. I don't think it is. The argument for the spittuogen, the usage of the spittuogen is the fact that it provides for us the rabbinical thought of the time before Jesus of what that word meant in Greek.

So you take a language that has few words to a language has much many more words and that's more specific.

So when they were translating it, they, the Jewish rabbis, so spittuogen was, spittuogen is based off the number 70.

The thought is there were 72 rabbis that did this translation and those rabbis thought the best

Greek word was the word we have for virgin and not young woman. So the issue is not based on the version.

What the version does is tell us the thinking of the rabbis before the time of Jesus.

Why? Well, many folks that are

Jewish that study the Talmud. Now, let me, for our audience that may not know the

Talmud, maybe you haven't gotten my book. What do they believe you should get that book and you can understand as it explains what

Jewish people believe along with several other religions. But in Jewish thinking today in rabbinic

Judaism, you have four authorities. You have the written law. We would call that the Old Testament. You have a commentary on that written law.

You have an oral law that then was written down and then you have a commentary on that oral law.

That commentary on the oral law is called the Talmud and that is what most of the rabbis will study and get their information from the

Talmud. It seems might have been written, you know, maybe just before the time of Christ, but much of it is after the time of Christ and you will see in the

Talmud much of it is a response to Christianity. So many of the arguments that are provided against Christ being the

Messiah come from those that are responding to Christ. Well, if we really want to have an understanding of the who the

Messiah was in Jewish thought on whether it could be Jesus or not be

Jesus. The answer is to go to the thinking of those before the time of Jesus not after the time of Jesus because when you go after and they're responding to it, you have people that are arguing trying to disprove something.

And if the earlier rabbis support a view that would fit with the

Christian view that Jesus is the Messiah that becomes very important. Well, one thing we see from the

Spituagin is that the Jewish rabbis at least 72 of them believed that this passage referred to a virgin

Earth, not a young maiden who has a child now, you could argue as many do that.

This was one of the very many prophecies that have both a near and far fulfillment.

So what some try to argue is that the near fulfillment was in Isaiah's day. There was a woman who is probably a virgin at the time of the prophecy that later has a child pointing to a future child.

I do have a little bit of a difficulty with that only because it says that she'll conceive and bear a son.

His name be called Emmanuel. Now, the word Emmanuel now is being used in two different ways, meaning God with us, meaning actually

God with us and the other way, meaning someone that's just called Emmanuel. So that has two different now.

Could it be that? It could be, but one thing that I always try to teach you here is not to go beyond what

Scripture says and Scripture doesn't say that there was someone born in that time that has a manual and that it had a dual meaning.

I don't give a text of Scripture dual meanings unless Scripture says it has a dual meaning. So my argument is not that the

Spituagin is inspired. My argument is not that this is somehow a mistranslation.

I would argue that the word Alma could be, it is within the range of meaning to be virgin or young lady.

However, the rabbis before the time of Christ felt that it was virgin. The fact that Ben Zion has to argue that it can only mean maiden just saying remember one of his arguments is he said the fact that the author has to manufacture evidence indicates that it does not have doesn't that he doesn't have the truth on his side.

Otherwise, he wouldn't resort to that Ben Zion. You're doing that. Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing in your whole argument here is you're relying on manufactured evidence because you know, if you know your

Hebrew, you know that the range of meanings could include virgin. So it's not a mistranslation.

It is the fact that this is a possible translation and the rabbis of the time before Christ saw that as the meaning and they in translated it that way not about Christians.

They saw it that way, right? So I'm going to argue it's not out of context. It's within the the range.

The rabbi saw that as the meaning because the significance is because it's before the time of Christ.

So I'm going to argue that we're not trying to shove Jesus into Isaiah.

I'm going to argue Ben Zion that the rabbis after the time of Christ in the writings of Talmud and elsewhere took out the meaning of Messiah because Jesus fit it and that becomes the thing.

So so if you want to be intellectually honest, you should recognize that you're the one that's manufacturing evidence to say that Alma only has one possible meaning that would be make it a mistranslation.

Well, doesn't he in in this question doesn't he also say that he says this is talking about a has his wife.

This is talking about a child that will be born to a has his wife. I think I think he that may be in the more detailed.

Yeah, because because I'm thinking this this section of scripture never mentions a has correct.

And and that's what I was referring to because this is in his six pages that I and I told him

I said look I the six pages. I had on short notice. I knew I was running a major event today and I did he sent it late last night that I saw it at least and I didn't have time.

I sent it to you and you're working today as well. So we may go through this and maybe in the next week or so we may answer these in more detail.

All right, keep looking up at that camera. I from habit. I tried to do this so I'm not looking up really what it is.

I don't want everyone to see how bald I am but but the bald spots filling in just saying so the the thing is we may come back and answer these in more detail just for folks to know and again folks.

If you want to come and ask any question, we encourage you go to a project live .com Thursday nights 8 to 10

Eastern time New York City time come in that will we really do want to encourage you to come in and and ask any question.

It's better. You know, I know Ben Zion said well, I'm not comfortable with this, you know drew.

I meant to ask you it's being a show do am I like this real big media that bite people's heads off or what that people well,

I think my experience is a little bit different just because I'm usually just kind of the post mill whipping boy.

So it's kind of I kind of get the the the the backhand of fellowship.

I guess you could say in a loving manner, but you know, but no, you're not you're not a big meanie everyone.

That's come on. Look even when we had osh on here, right still you are still very gracious even when his motive was exposed you you even still acted in a gracious manner.

I try to and so I'm just saying like I know there's some people like well, I don't want to be on camera. Okay, don't be on camera.

Ash wasn't the second time he came on you don't have to be Melissa saying poor drew and he just wanted sympathy.

That's why just you know, so I'm glad that someone gave it. Thank you Melissa for giving him the sympathy.

He was look look. She's she's crying for you. Oh, oh wait. I'm sorry. She was laughing at laughing at me.

Well, she had tears. Oh wait, there were tears of laughter. So one of the things that you know, if you want to come in, we're not

I'm not going to you know, we're not going to beat up on people. So, you know Ben Zion you if you want to come in it just the reason

I encourage people to come in is it makes it a more fruitful discussion and then we get to interact with the corrections you make about what

I say instead of sending me an email response and then it's just not a great way or even in chat where people are watching live and doing the chats and we'll get to some of the questions in a bit.

So yeah, he may he may mention this in the in the greater document, which is why I referenced it.

But as I said scripture doesn't say doesn't say that could it mean that yeah, it could could it have a dual purpose?

Yes, it could again. The fact that his argument is if that's his argument and I can't say it is because I didn't read the six pages yet, but if you're saying it was in there if that's his argument and I'm just stressing if because I don't want to be accused of taking him out of context if that's his argument then what he's doing is he is the one who's manufacturing evidence saying well because where in scripture does it say that well, it doesn't say that in the

Tanakh. I'm being specific with that. Why because there's other what we call scriptures other authorities in Judaism, but they're not

God's word in my opinion the Tanakh the Old Testament that would be okay, the

Talmud no wouldn't the Mishnah the Midrash know though they wouldn't though.

I would not consider those scripture. Okay, I consider those the words of men and so I don't put that as an authority now.

He would disagree with that but then the same argument we can make against those writings because we could find contradictions in those by the way by his own argument since he's going to argue this he has a dilemma because in the

Hebrew not in the English in the Hebrew in the Masoretic text, I think and I don't have this offhand.

I should have looked it up. I think it's in in Kings and Chronicles. There's references to Solomon's chariots and and footman and it has the numbers reversed between the chariots and the soldiers and I remember talking to a rabbi and I said, well, which one's right?

He said in God's to the Divine Providence God wanted these numbers to be here for reasons.

We don't know. Well, what it is is someone got the numbers reversed and no one knows which one's the right one.

So they say God inspired it that way where I would say someone had a copyist error and we don't know which one is right now.

It doesn't make a difference in the meaning but I can accept that humans make errors.

So when when but from the Jewish perspective because they would believe many at least the

Orthodox would believe that the the Masoretic text is is the right one and it hasn't changed and there's textual variances within it.

They can't accept that. I mean very much like Muslims that it can't accept variances that that within the

Arabic and yet they exist, right? So all that to say the reason we rely on the spittuogen is to show the thinking of the

Jewish rabbis before the time of Jesus. Is this a misquote a mistranslation?

No, it's not because it's within the range. Okay, I think I hope that sufficiently answers that so for the first one,

I'm not impressed with the argument. I don't think it nails any coffin to show that you can't trust the

New Testament than the author of the New Testament to show that it's not inspired. What I think it shows is when you have to limit the range of meaning.

To two things that are not within the range then what you're you end up with is the fact that you're the one manufacturing the the the details and that by your own definition would make you well dishonest.

Okay, and I mean even just just the context alone of what's going on because you have a has who's trying to do this this kind of backhanded deal to to make sure they're not overrun by the

Assyrians and God saying to a has he saying no, I'm going to protect you here ask of me a sign ask whatever you want you even though a has was a wicked man.

All right. He's the one who locked the temple doors chain the temple doors took the altar out put it behind the temple put all the other altars to all the false gods out in front.

He was a wicked man in even in that God says no look I will protect you. I'll give you a sign ask me whatever you want and a has will not do it.

And so what does he say? He says, okay, I'm going to give you a sign. Here's the sign to all of Israel a child is going to be born of a virgin.

This is going to be the sign and then verse 15 is also an interesting sign an interesting verse here because it says he will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good that that idea of curds and honey means that he's going to be born into a poor common family.

He's not going to be rich. He's not going to be wealthy. He's going to be born to a poor family.

So yeah, and the thing is let me let me just kind of hit on this use of virgin one more time just to say for Benzine who's going to listen and prior respond to us, which is good.

I encourage him to me and if he wants to come on with I would love for him to come on so we can have the dialogue.

It's much better than respond and I told him it's just too much for me to type up and respond easier to do it on the show and easier to have the discussion but Genesis 2443.

This is Abraham wants to get a wife for his son Isaac. He sends his servant back to his family members to find a wife and his servant says that you know, he basically says to God.

Okay. Here's how you the right woman and he says behold

I'm standing at the spring of water. Let let the Virgin who comes to draw water to whom

I shall say, please give me a little water from your jar to drink. So he's putting a test for God.

The one that you want my you know for Isaac to marry let that Virgin come and ask for a drink or to give me a drink.

now The issue there is is he saying a young woman who could be married or could not be married.

Well, it the idea here is it's clearly a woman who is not married in that culture.

The woman who's not married would not have consummated right and therefore be a virgin you see in Proverbs 30 verse 19 the way of of an eagle in the sky the way of the serpent on a rock the way of a ship on the high seas and the way of a man with a virgin.

Is it the way of a man with a young girl? Well, no, it's going to be the way of a man with someone on the wedding night is the idea.

Okay, what's Proverbs about a wedding? Or at least

Proverbs 30 so so you end up then you end up seeing song of Solomon, which is specifically the whole book is about a wedding.

Okay, I got I got wrong with Proverbs 31. I was thinking I Proverbs 30 I was thinking 31 dealing with the the the wife but song of Solomon is all about a wedding.

That's the whole idea. It's get myself in trouble. It's not about Jesus and the church. It's about Solomon and his wife.

Okay, and because of my view scripture is for God's glory not just about Christ and so godly wedding a godly marriage does you know glorify

God so song of Solomon 1 3 your your anointing oils and fragrance your name is oil poured out therefore virgins love you song of Solomon 6 8 there are 60

Queens and 80 concubines and virgins without number.

Well, okay. We have Queens. Those are people that are married to Solomon. We have concubines.

Those are ones that are married to Solomon, but not really, you know, they're not the same level as they aren't official wives and then you have virgins why specify them as just young women.

No, it's specifying that they're virgins. They're there. They haven't been with the king yet. Okay, so the the issue here is if Ben Zion is going to prove that he's not manufacturing evidence what he must do is prove that Alma only means a young woman and not a virgin that Virgin is not in the range of meanings for that.

I didn't think to do this. I don't have time to do it now, but a good thing would be for me to look up the word

Alma used in the Masoretic text to see how it's used. Maybe I maybe

I can get that done at a later time for another show. We'll see if we deal with the rest of it. Maybe I'll look that up.

So I think I think we sufficiently answered that. Okay, let's let's take a look at his other arguments.

All right. So he says okay says about the misquoting.

All right, how is Jesus the Messiah if he isn't from the lineage of David every

Jew in the world knows our lineage comes from the father not the mother if God is father.

He isn't from David. Although the New Testament tried to trace Mary's ancestry to David, although contradictory ways, it's irrelevant because it goes by the father.

Okay, I think and I'm reading into this. This is where dialogue would be helpful. I think he's trying to say that the two genealogies are both coming from Mary.

I think he I don't know because I was thinking one was David and one was

Mary. Well, they both go through David. Okay, both genealogy, right?

There is a difference in genealogies. I'll get to that. What many Christians believe is one is the genealogy of Mary and one is the genealogy of Joseph and the way many people argue this because it preaches so well is that from father and mother side.

They're both of the line of David. So one he gets it through adoption and the other he gets it through blood. Okay, that that's the way that we many will do it.

I'm going to disagree with that. All right, and so folks hold hold on to your seats for the believers out there.

Hold on to your seats. We're going to address that because I'm going to argue. They're both through Joseph.

All right. So what we end up seeing in this is he

I think the only way I can understand this argument is that he thinks both are from Mary because he says he says that they're through Mary's trace through Mary although contradictory ways.

So I think he's saying that they're both through Mary in contradictory ways and he says it's relevant because what he says he's saying it doesn't matter if they're contradictory because it's not from the father.

Well Jewish people are Jewish religiously through the mother not the father.

It's the only religion in the world that I know of where the inheritance of the religious belief is from the mother.

So Jesus would have been Jewish without a human father through his mother. So how could he have the line of David?

Very simple now and let me let me get to this as well many people that will argue that for the line of David and line of Mary they'll say that the there was a curse of the

Hebrew king from God that none of his children would ever sit on the throne.

And so what you have is they argue that they're in the line. That's that cursed line is of the line of Joseph.

And so Mary's line is the good line that has has the blood line. But Joseph's is the one that you don't have the blood line, but you have the inheritance from that line.

That would be the argument. So that pretty again it preaches. Well, I just disagree with it.

Why I think both are an argument from the father's side very much in line with what his argument is that the

Messiah would have to come through the father's lineage. So why is there a difference drew?

I am so glad you asked that question. It's a very good question. Yes. Yes. I'm very astute in my questioning tonight.

No, and I like that about you. So let me throw this a question to you drew.

Do you know what is the kinsmen Redeemer? What with the that whole thinking?

Mm -hmm. Yes, we see that in Ruth where the only one who can redeem is someone who is a relative.

Okay. So if a person if a man dies and he has a brother the brother can marry the wife when the brother does that whose children that when he has children with that wife whose children are they are they his or his dead brothers?

They're his no. Well, yes, but from inheritance perspective.

Okay, so the children get the inheritance from the dead brother. Correct. In fact, you brought up Ruth there was a kinsmen

Redeemer that was closer than Boaz and why didn't he want to marry

Boaz or Ruth? Because if he married her and did what the kinsmen

Redeemer must do which is have children with her then a portion of his inheritance that would go to his children would have to be split with her children in the name of her dead husband.

He would have to adopt them. They would be not in his line, but the dead husband's line.

Yeah, you know, I've never heard that before. Now. Here's why that becomes interesting.

I had been doing some study in in church history found some of the early church fathers and in early one of the early church fathers.

I don't have it written down now which one but within about a hundred some years of the death of Christ one of the early church fathers refers to Joseph's grandfather as being in a line of a kinsmen

Redeemer. Now, what do you have? So you have the line that is biologically

Joseph and you have the kinsmen Redeemer line of Joseph.

Why would that make a difference? Well that line that was where the cursed King that none of his children his physical children would be rolling and raining that line comes down through a kinsmen

Redeemer. So their blood is not there but the other line, right?

So you have him adopted as the right kingly line and then you have the blood line.

So is a blood and adoption line, but they're both through Joseph due to a kinsmen

Redeemer and we have people who are very close historically to the time unlike us that are saying that this is that this was known at the time.

So does that preach as well as the all the people that preach that Mary's line and Joseph's line you have the blood line.

No, it doesn't preach as well as that. I think that this is a lot more explanation than more people want to get into.

Yes, because not everyone understands Kinmen kinsmen Redeemer. You have to look we don't live in a

Jewish mindset. We don't we don't have the idea of a kinsmen Redeemer nowadays.

So when we argue this way, we have to recognize we first have to put ourselves into the mindset of someone of that day to understand what they would be thinking of it and you're right.

It takes more explanation drew that is why I think people go with what's what preaches well and we should not do what preaches well over what is right and I would so how would

I respond to Ben Zion's argument? Well, I would say both are from the line of the father.

Historically and looking at the text because the text doesn't know where in either of the genealogies doesn't mention

Mary. Both of them mentioned that they're coming to the line down to Joseph.

Okay. Well one doesn't mention Joseph's name and the other does okay, but it but they're still coming through that line and the assumption in that day and age would be it's going through the father.

So if it was Mary's line, you would think that if they're doing some opposite to the common way of thinking that the author would signify that by mentioning

Mary and he they don't yeah. Okay. And so, okay.

So let's let's deal with a question. So so my first thought when

I saw that, you know, how how can you say he is the son of David or the son of the son of David when he's not born of Joseph?

My very first thought was the same way. We are of God's children adoption.

Yeah, my very first thought the same way you are a child of God when you come into the kingdom through adoption.

Well, and a kinsman Redeemer is not the physical bloodline,

But of that the dead that they're the child of the dead husband.

Yep. Yep. Right. Think of the question. The rabbis asked Jesus. This was the big debate between Pharisees and Sadducees.

You have a husband who's who's Marys husband dies and doesn't have children. The second

Marys doesn't have and it goes on for seven seven husbands last one dies.

No children. Whose husband will she be since she married all seven the whole idea is because she didn't have children.

She physically married each one of them. And whose will she be in heaven?

Now the argument that the Sadducees and Pharisees would make is that the

Sadducees would argue there is no heaven. There is no afterlife the

Pharisees would have argued that it's the first husbands and Jesus said you guys both got it wrong because there's no marriage.

Okay, and so it's like no, sorry both wrong. So so someone put was lost but but now

I'm found says the temple lineage records were still intact before the sacking and destruction by the

Romans. So the point he's making is that before the time of 70

AD when the temple was destroyed. They would have had the records. Okay, again, this is one of those things and I think

John MacArthur is the one I think of with this but that preaches well, but I think is incorrect and I've said this before on this program.

MacArthur will preach that after 70 AD. We can't possibly know who the Messiah was because all the records were destroyed in 70

AD. That's true. All the records were destroyed but in a culture that puts so much weight and emphasis on their lineage that they memorized it orally.

What do you think they do? Once those physical written records are destroyed. What would you do if you need to make sure you know your lineage and it was written down and you're in a culture where people memorize their lineage going far back in many generations.

What are they going to do? That's what they did. And so I know it preaches.

Well that we can't possibly know we can know because when they were destroyed it was written down again.

Okay. That that's what they would have done. So what you have here is you have two lines of Joseph.

So for Ben Zion's argument. He's trying to argue. They're coming from the mother.

I'm going to say neither one of them are from the mother. They're both from the father. It's that there's a kinsmen

Redeemer and the reason he could be the son of David is through adoption.

And if he's going to deny adoption as being something that you would have if he's going to deny the way that a kinsmen

Redeemer would work. He's got to prove that and now is he going to reject the evidence that we have in the

Tanakh to do so if so again, he's under his option number three that he's manufacturing evidence.

So it can can we say he's truth is on side. I would say no. No. Let's see

Bible and care Bible and share fellowship is saying smash the like button.

I'll give you one better that you guys could do you could if you're watching on YouTube. You could smash whatever button.

It says for the for the support and and send us a super chat. That'd be much better than the like button.

And I don't know why everyone wants to smash the like button. What did it do to you that you want to smash it be nice to the like button.

Just just click the subscribe and then click the bell. So, you know when we're going on that that is on we would appreciate if you guys

I mean look the reality is this is a podcast as well. So if you're watching if you're watching live what we what we always suggest that like it that go hit the like whether it's

YouTube Twitter Facebook like it share and follow and for every like and share

Andrew's going to double my pay from last week. I will be glad actually, you know, I'm going to triple it.

How's that even better even better because you make whopping money here.

But but yeah, I know if you guys like it and share it share right now even but you like it share it, you know, let others know about it.

But yeah, if you want to support that's even even better. You could do that on YouTube with it with a super chat.

And by the way, if you give us a super chat, we always read those. So it's one way to guarantee your question will get asked right?

So I didn't say answered. I said asked you will you'll get an answer because I can answer anything.

Okay, Kate Katie and Jesus is saying throw pillows at it. Throw my throw my pillows at it.

See I love you know, drew we talked about this this week before you know after your show.

This is the only show I could think of where those who watch want to hear commercials.

Yeah, how many how many podcasts? How many live streams have people begging for commercials?

That's like crazy, right? It's like wait, what like the whole point of like what is it the recording or whatever is so you can fast forward through the commercials.

Yeah, that's the thing. Most people don't want the commercials, but hey on this show, even the commercials are fun because we like to make everything fun and educational.

So let's throw my pillow at the like button. I don't know if that actually works if I should try that grab my my pillow throw it at the screen and see if that actually clicks, but I don't think it will but the show is supported by my pillow.

So if you wanted to get yourself a good pillow, don't know that it'll work for throwing at the like button, but it may work at helping you get a good night of sleep.

Go to mypillow .com or call 1 -800 -873 -0176 use the promo code

SFE and that lets them know you're supporting that you heard about them from us and that keeps them supporting us which we're happy for because that keeps the lights on looking up at the lights they're on so and and we really do appreciate it.

They it's it's a funny thing. I know, you know, we tell folks. Hey, you want to support us directly.

You could just go to striking turning .org slash support. That's the best way to support us. But one of the things

I've always learned drew is that people will are more likely to support if they get something from it.

That's people will give us money for books, but not just give us the money like it just changed.

That's the thing. So you're supporting not only yourself a good night of sleep or great towels, great mattress toppers.

You're also getting yourself a support for this show. So it's it's a kind of a double win.

You get something we get something. It's great. And and so on serving for Jesus saying hey, hey, hey, don't forget about log us

Bible software, which drew you have to use more often. I'm just saying you using it more and more that you're using it more and more and if you want to if you're new to Bible log us

Bible software or you want to do an upgrade you can go to log us .com slash

SFE stands for striving fraternity that lets them know that you got you heard about from us.

But here's the here's the thing you get extra. Not only do you get the same great discount that they would offer you but you get five books to choose from free from striving fraternity.

Now, if you're like me, I'm Jewish. I go for the most expensive books that I could take free.

I look there. Okay, which are the five that are across the most those are the ones I want. Yes, I could buy the cheaper ones, right?

So that's my thinking, you know, and Pastor Justin Pierce. He shared this. I think it was last week about Logos and it was their

Bible study tool. They have a tool that you can use that will help you map out Bible studies.

And I was just kind of playing around the other day and I clicked on it and it was I mean, it was great because it's it's actually giving you instructions on how to map out your

Bible study whether you're doing one for a small group to make it easier to present and whatnot or just personal

Bible study. I mean, it was a great tool to use. Yeah, it is. It is.

So let's wrap up with Ben Zion's what we have here. And like I said, we you and I got to go through the six pages of notes and see on that.

But so he says I was thinking of it about it after I emailed you last night. There's three things that I deduce when we see the

New Testament misquote or mistake the Old Testament to make it appear to prove

Jesus. Well again, as I said, we're not misquoting anything or mistaking anything.

We're quoting the rabbis before the time of Jesus. That's what we're quoting the rabbinical thought before the time of Jesus.

So even this question is just an assumption. Correct. It's all he's doing.

He's inserting his assumption as though it's fact and that's all it is, an assumption.

He has yet to prove actually anything. Okay. So are you familiar with the logical fallacy that that is called?

If you don't know off the top of your head, that's okay. Yeah, I don't know off the top of my head. But if you say it. This is called a begging the question fallacy.

You assume your conclusion and then you ask the question as if your conclusion is true without ever providing the support for it.

So a lot of this is what the Democratic Party does a lot of it. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. So the problem with the argument here is the premise has never been supported.

Right? It's been assumed. So he says number one, you can't trust anything the rest of the book.

Of the book because the author isn't honest. Well, I'm not going to make the claim that Ben Zion is dishonest.

I like he's doing to the Bible. I'm not claiming that I'm just saying that he hasn't proven his point.

But if he's going to argue that way, I could show where you have claims of in the

Talmud that would have mistakes in it like this what he's claiming is a mistake therefore, is he going to throw out the

Talmud? He would have to according to his own assumption. Okay, so Bible and Share Fellowship says

Democratic Party exclamation point. All right. So this actually is a brother who

I know personally. I'm not going to since he doesn't have his name up. I don't want to give his name unless he decides to put his name into the in YouTube and then

I can give it but I got to get him on because he actually is got to meet him at a church that I attended for some time for a few months or a few weeks and but you know, we met solid guy.

I like his stuff that he produces. So I'll just give a shout out. You know, actually I want to give says I'm shouting him out as somebody let me let me give another shout out as well for folks who you know, because look this is a podcast drew you have a podcast matter of theology.

I have you on my show so that we could because we're in competition, right? Oh, absolutely.

Yeah. Yeah, right. I tell people to listen to your podcast.

I'm saying hey go check out Bible and Share Fellowship on YouTube. He I watched some of this stuff.

I don't watch everything he puts out but everything I've seen he puts out. I enjoy you know, another another good one is it is matter conversations that matter.

So not matter of theology this time, but conversations that matter with a friend of mine John Harris. I've gotten to know

John. We're a little bit and we're in the past and we've gotten to know each other better and better. He invited me to speak at his his men's retreat that he's got coming up.

I'll get you the dates as it gets closer and the locations as we get more details and he gives all the other speakers, but he's got to come.

He's got conversations that matter. If you listen to my Andrew Rapaport's rap report podcast conversation of matter is is a very similar.

He takes a little bit of a different tact with things but where we're going to focus on theology and hermeneutics, but we deal with cultural issues as well.

He kind of deals with a lot of the cultural issues deals with the social justice and the woke movement, but he addresses it from the perspective of the church now.

He's come under a lot of fire because he had the nerve to have Stephen Wolf on about Christian nationalism.

Now, look, I haven't read Stephen Wolf's book and I haven't read you know, a

Doug Wilson's book on it either and I really haven't read a whole lot about Christian nationalism, right? So I don't have a dog in the show or pony in there.

Whatever that however that phrase goes, but I don't like I'm not examining either one of these two sides, by the way,

Doug Wilson's you know, his publishing house published both books. Yeah. Okay, so why there's a division?

Okay, but I mean either way Doug Wilson makes money off it. So the thing is is that that aside someone's saying

Jones Harris is a good guy. No, I think but J -O -N

Harris, but John is willing to listen to both sides and one of the things I appreciate about his show

Conversations That Matter, he doesn't just go off on a whim and he thinks through issues before he speaks on them.

And I know that he'll he will study things before he you know, he he will research something before he goes live with it because he wants to make sure he's right.

And so we deal with a lot of similar issues from a different perspective. And so if you like my rap report podcast by this rap with two

Ps if you go look it up, it's not about rap music, but if you if you listen and like rap report and follow that podcast, you're going to enjoy

Conversations That Matter. They go very well hand in hand though. We're not dealing with the same issues at the same time. Sometimes we actually are which is not planned and a lot of people have thought that we're really good friends.

That's how we got to know each other because people thought we are because of the fact that we both talk about the same thing sometimes at the same time as if we're talking to each other and it's not until you know, somewhat recent that we started really talking to each other.

We met at a Shepherd's conference several years ago He started following me on Facebook. Who knows when because I didn't know we're friends.

But so thanks for that. Go check out your

Bible and care. I keep saying Bible care. Bible care and share fellowship.

Okay. So let's back to this letter so we can wrap up because we do have some questions in the chat to deal with.

So number two is he said it's not written or inspired by God if there was mistakes.

I agree. I totally agree with that. The difference is I don't see the mistakes, right?

I explained them with a very simple to understand mistake. In fact, I would argue that when you try to argue both of the lineages the genealogies are

Mary's you got a lot of that's going to be hard to prove when it says son of Joseph Jesus son of Joseph.

That's really hard to say that really means Mary. You know, how are you going to get that?

And like I said, if one of the lineages were the line of Mary, I think you're going to have a hard time proving that even the lineage that doesn't mention

Joseph is of Mary because every lineage in the Bible is through the father even when it will say

Boaz who is married to Ruth, right? The reference is with Ruth, but it's still through Boaz.

It's always through the father. So if you had an exception like Ruth okay, or you know, the other women mentioned in the genealogies they're always mentioned with who?

The husband. So the line is always going through the husband. The exceptions are always mentioned.

So when you look at the genealogy of Ruth, what do you have? You have the kinsmen Redeemer. So that's the thing.

So we as we look at this you end up seeing that it's always through the man the father.

So if there it was through Mary there should be an exception. Okay, KT is asking could

Mary have been related to Joseph? I don't think so. I don't know. I mean, obviously the answer ultimately is yes somewhere far enough back they're related.

Right? If you go far enough back, we're all related to Adam and Eve right or even to know his family, but how far back we don't know

Joseph would have been in the lineage one way or the other in the lineage of David.

The issue I would say is Mary we know is related to Elizabeth who married into a

Levite family an Aaronic priesthood specifically Corhite. So if he's a

Cohine then you you know, it'd be a Levite family. So was she a

Levite? Don't know. We don't have enough information to answer that question.

So his number three is the fact that the author has to manufacture evidence indicates he does not have the truth on his side and my whole thing

Ben Zion that I've said it several times but I don't think you have the truth on your side by your own words.

You manufactured evidence. So why did you have to resort to that? I don't know.

Why could it be that because the scriptures and the pre time the time prior to Jesus supports what we would argue.

Could that be? Could that be why we don't have much of the writings before because there there are some people prior to the time of Christ some rabbis who did accept that Isaiah 53 is referring to Messiah.

Now again, if that's pre Jesus prior to the time of Christ that shows you the thinking that the rabbis after the time of Christ reject.

Okay, so by the way, you know, I'll just throw this out there since I mentioned

Isaiah 53 just for those who are listening to know many Christians will argue that Isaiah 53 is not read in synagogues because they want to deny

Jesus somehow. They don't want people to know that's referring to to the Messiah. It's a that's a bad argument.

Please don't use that argument, especially with Jewish people because many Jewish people would know that Isaiah 53 is not the only haft

Torah reading that's not there. So you have the Torah readings and the haft Torahs. So you have this this right readings that are set for that whatever week and so we'll read through the entire first five books of the

Bible in a year, but everything after that we don't read in the synagogues all of that every year.

You have portions. So there's a lot more missing than just Isaiah 53.

It's not that they singled out Isaiah 53 because this all this so is Jesus. So let's not read that. That's a bad argument because any

Jewish person will know that at least one that attends synagogue regularly and and knows the readings knows there's a whole ton of passages.

Isaiah 53 is just one of many that's not read and it's not because oh this points to Messiah.

It's because they have different. There's only so many passages you can read in 52 weeks and they're picking ones that they feel are the strongest ones to be read.

That's all. Okay, so that answers those. Let me his last one. I'm curious what positive evidence convinced you to believe in Christianity.

Well, let me answer that and that'll be the last one we get to answer. Let me just ask.

Did you have a burning in your bosom when you read the gospels? Oh, I don't know if I should know

I have a burning in my bosom. I just don't know if I should show this video.

I will get in so much trouble. But no, I can't because I do think it would be wrong. But I will say the closest to a burning in the bosom that I got from a text that people say a scripture is when there was a

Book of Mormon burning and that would have that generated heat. That's as close as I got as a burning in the bosom.

No that burning in the bosom that as I said to one person that they felt oh, I prayed and I got a burning in the bosom and I said, yeah, it was heartburn.

There we go. Melissa is saying heartburn right here. Well, two people actually said it.

So here's was lost and now found and Melissa heartburn. So obviously regular listeners.

So what convinced me? Very simple. I'm going to try to be quick because I do know that we got a number of questions.

So the thing that convinced me is mathematics. When you look at the prophecies of Messiah in the

Old Testament and you look at those prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, not ones that could be self -fulfilled but ones that would just be coincidence that he's born of the line of David and and here's the thing

Ben Zion is going to just deny all those just reject those but is that being honest with with the scriptures?

Oh, even though he has no sound we have chicken man with this chickens. that is so good.

John we miss your chickens. He says he's got no sound but we get to see the chickens. So so at least at least that's good.

I got sound. Oh, there we go. You got sounds good. Maybe we can hear chickens clock.

But alright, so so it really that's what convinced me. What got me was the fact that we you know, we look at that and see that only

God could has the ability to to know the future.

Absolutely. When you have such detailed prophecies that like what you have in Daniel like what you have in Isaiah.

So this is what you have now. We talk about having to manufacture evidence to try to convince people son when you have to resort to that when you take

Isaiah 53 and say that speaking of the nation of Israel. It doesn't fit the text.

The nation of Israel can't die for the nation of Israel as you know, it can't be a sacrifice for it.

Just the same when you look at it. So so that that answers. I hope that sufficiently answers what we in the initial now as I said, we may come back and do a part two with this.

All right. So with that, let's see drew if we could get through these questions pretty quickly that you have starred here.

And so here was the first one came up question. This is from John. So drew do you watch

Alan with the YouTube channel polite leader? I just found out he is post mill like you drew.

Do you believe in the seven Mountain Dominion mandate? So first off true. Let me ask you this first.

Were you at the post mill conference that happened this weekend? No, I was I was not at it.

I didn't even listen to it didn't watch. I was too busy with no, I just wanted to know if you if you came up with an excuse to not be at you know cruciform so that you could

I'm going to have to go through all the pictures at that post mill conference and see if you were I mean, you may never be invited to cruciform again.

If you went to some heretical postman. I mean, hey, dr. White was there.

I'm not surprised. But so I don't know dot post mill.

Yeah, hashtag that post mill, but so I don't know who Alan Alan is.

I don't watch the polite leader. No clue, but so the seven mountain man mandate.

I did answer this question at the end of last episode that Chris and I did. I don't know if you had to leave

John, but the seven mountain mandate is actually no post mill will actually hold to the seven mountain mandate.

We reject that we view it as a heresy the seven mountain mandate comes from Bethel and I hop

Kansas City the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, which is run by Mike Bickel. Now, this was initially started by Mike Bickel in the

Kansas City Prophets and it's been further pushed by Bill Johnson and Bethel.

But what it does is what they're saying is it's the Christians job to conquer these seven mountains out in culture.

So politics entertainment education, you know, all of these mountains and once we conquer those mountains, the idea is that we will usher in the return of Christ.

We actually reject that and even even Bethel themselves Bethel. I hop they're actually not post mill.

The majority of their teaching in their schools is dispensational premillennialism.

They they read John MacArthur's books on Revelation. They sell John MacArthur's books on Revelation at their bookstores.

So that's that's the vast majority of their of their eschatology diet, but the post mill would actually reject the seven mountain mandate.

We would say no there we would say the only the only

Dominion we take is by the spreading of the gospel and through the local church planting local churches.

That's it. We're not called to go out and be political leaders. Now. There are some post mills that take that a little too far to see the

Christian nationalist debate. Okay that they would say we need it. We need to get into politics that we need to have

God's law legislated so that it you know and become a Christian nation and we would a lot of people actually say no we would say the the place we start is we start with ourselves self -governance and then our families and then our church and then our communities and we just build out from there.

But our goal is not to usher in the return of Christ. Our goal is to advance the kingdom just by the spreading of the gospel.

Yeah, so John John says thank you. Thank you, Drew. No, I left last week early.

Thank you for your answer. By the way Bible and Bible care and share Fellowship says pre -trip forever.

Well Melissa so so yesterday last week I was drinking my frescas right and Melissa. She said she said

Drew you keep drinking fresca. You're going to turn into a pre mill. Yeah. Well, hey and Chris Chris had never had a fresca before that.

So yeah, there you go. So staying in that theme and in the order that we had here. Brian says

I had a friend contact me recently. He said he is full preterist baptism and enduring to the end is needed for Salvation also holds to the to it to the age of to it to age of accountability and denies original sin.

I would like it if you could tackle some of these topics. So we got to do this quickly. Yeah, right.

There's a of things in there. So let me just say full preterism is heresy because it denies the return of Christ.

It believes that Christ already returned. And the thing is this used to be a fringe movement. It's gaining traction.

It has been gaining traction and what you're seeing in this is it's so when you have heresies, they kind of attract other heresies.

And so there's several in here. So one full preterism denies the the return of Christ.

Okay, that's that definition. Partial preterism is different. That's not her because it sees

Christ is returning to see some of the prophecies fulfilled already. Well, all of us believe some of everyone's really, you know, all

Christians would be at least a partial preterist in that in the broad sense of the definition. But when you say baptism and enduring to the end are necessary for salvation, you have a different gospel and now you have a works -based righteousness.

Why? Because what you're saying is that yes, Christ death on the cross is that what brings you into salvation, but ultimately salvation is based on what you do.

So you lose that salvation if you don't endure to the end. So your works play a role.

That's faith plus works. What does that sound like Roman Catholicism? So there's with the idea of baptism also is sounds a little bit of Church of Christ in there as well.

Yeah, and that's a work as well. And so when you have when you have the trying to be quick with it when you add these things even if you say well

God did the 99 % but you have to do the one in believing in him or in this case being baptized and during it then it's not all of Christ.

Okay, an age of accountability age of accountability. I don't think that's a big deal. If people want to hold to that.

I don't agree with it. I don't see it in Scripture, but when you add what he says here and denies original sin if the age of accountability is tied to denying original sin then the age of accountability is a problem not because of age of accountability, but denying original sin.

Because then you have people that are born without sin without an inherited sin from Adam which denies what

Romans 5 12 and following says and that's a problem. So we were quick with it, but I think we tackled it.

So John has this for you drew question for drew you as a post mill.

Can you help me understand acts 1 6 then they gathered around him and asked him

Lord. Are you at this time going to restore the kingdom of Israel? And I said quick drew because right?

Yeah, 20 minutes. So just moving quickly. I'll just respond. It is not for you to know the times for which the father is fixed by his own authority.

So it is God is what we I would say just real quickly.

We would say the kingdom has come from the post mill perspective. The kingdom has come.

It's just growing the mustard seed to the large tree. The leaven into a lump of dough. It's just growing and when

Christ comes back will be the culmination the fullness of that kingdom when he comes back.

Okay, Jim says out of out of topic question. Can an Armenian pastor be used to save the elect?

Yes. Yes. An unbeliever can be used to save the an unsaved you're an unsaved person who thinks they're saved.

In fact an unsaved person could be used. All right, God could use whatever means

God used a donkey to speak to bail them. Was it you that mentioned a friend or someone that was saved out of Black Sabbath?

Yeah. So so but but see she heard the gospel from her brother. Right. The brother shared the gospel with her.

She goes to a Black Sabbath concert sees the cross upside down gets offended. It doesn't know why concert thinks about what her brother shared the gospel brother shared and got saved.

So yeah, God could use an upside -down cross at a Black Sabbath concert. So yeah,

John says question for Andrew. We're both Andrew. What do you mean? No. Did you say that Jesus is not in the line of David?

Sorry, I didn't understand that part of the show. So if I said that no Jesus is in line of David I hope

I made that clear if I didn't forgive me it would have been a misspeak if that's the case.

So KT is asking I she asked this much earlier and then she asked it again. I asked if you you read

Dialogue of Trifo by Justin Martyr. No, I have not. So I can't speak to that when

I did see you had that on and Chicken Man does have a question for us. So we'll bring him in and this is one that I did want to answer.

I saw this John. I did see this online and so but go ahead.

Yeah, I was going to ask you why do Jewish people kiss the the doorposts of inside their homes or the lintels is what they

I believe the description is. So what you have is this is based out of Deuteronomy chapter 6 and they actually don't they should they typically aren't going to kiss the doorpost.

What they're going to typically do is they have on the on the doorpost is what's called the mezuzah.

I should have I you know, you you wanted this question asked. I should have picked. I have one downstairs that I that I showed folks.

So the mezuzah that is on it has Deuteronomy 6 along with some other passages that are in a scroll in a in a container that they nail to the doorpost.

Okay, and so what you have in Deuteronomy chapter 6 it says there this is starting in verse 4 hero

Israel Yahweh is our God Yahweh is one you shall love Yahweh your

God with all your heart with all your soul with all your might these words which I am commanding to you today shall be in on your heart.

You shall teach them diligently to your sons. You'll speak of them when you sit down in your house when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be interesting how the

LSB translates this as phylacteries between your eyes. You shall write them on doorposts of your house and on your gates.

So what that is is people to the Jewish people take that literally literally the the idea is they take this passage and they have these boxes called to film.

They're not called phylacteries in like that's a Greek term. So if you were speaking to anyone

Jewish and you say phylacteries they go, huh? It's to film and in that box will contain this along with other passages and in Exodus and elsewhere that they will put in there.

They will bind it on their eyes. They bind it on their hands. They take it literally so they take this these passages.

They put it on the door. The reason is is that they when they're touching it and kissing their hand it is it is to be basically a blessing to God's Word and they're taking it and putting

God's Word. They're trying to get God's Word literally on them or into them. And so the idea is to take it literal that so when we would look at the command is to love the

Lord your God with all your mind heart soul and strength. They would look as the command is to recite scripture when you rise up when you lie down on the four frontlets of your eyes physically on the on your hands physically on your door post literally.

So that's how they would end up interpreting that. All right. Thanks. You're welcome.

All right. We have Drew see you could see who's who's there backstage.

What are you doing here man? Yeah, and he has a question for you.

I think Hey, yeah, it's we see it in the private chats is you casually drinking milk drew.

It's what the man the man of cruciform himself passed the

Brandon Scalf. How are you? I'm all right. I just had a car fall on me.

But other than that, I'm doing pretty good. I am really was a matchbox car. What's that?

I'm really hoping it was a matchbox car. No, it was the Honda. You remember when you were in town that little piece that kind of was hanging off.

Well, it came the rest of the way off and bent underneath it. And so I realized in order to fix the situation, I needed to jack the car up.

But all I had was like the little little guy that comes with the cars that are about this big.

So I was like jacking it up and it slipped underneath and you know, since it's a Honda Civic, it's about 0 .5

inches from the ground because it has an identity crisis that thinks it's in Fast and the Furious and it's not a pastor's car.

So it just was an interesting situation fell down on me and I figured since I'm alive,

I might as well join Andrew and Drew and see what they're up to. Yeah. So I had the privilege of hearing you preach in your own church.

So that was a first for me. I got to thoroughly enjoy that. The conference was, if you weren't listening at the beginning, the conference was great.

I mean, really enjoyed your conference. It was phenomenal. I encouraged everyone to sign up for next year.

I don't know who you have speaking yet. I've already begged for that.

So for the record, I asked Brandon to, you know, consider me.

I hope I did a good enough job that he would invite me back. Well, I think we're three years strong with you now,

Andrew. So I think it's probably safe to say that you're invited. Yeah. Well, I would love that.

I enjoy the conference thoroughly, though. I never looking at the rest of the speakers.

I never think that I belong there. Just saying. That's literally how I feel. I was looking at these guys and I'm going it's a good thing.

I did back out because these guys are amazing and then I'm listening to it and I'm just I'm listening to it while I'm working and then when

I come home and I'm just being edified left and right. Yeah. So so so let me get we got a couple things that came up real quick.

I answered this one, but Bible care and share fellowship asked. He said I was told Isaiah 53 is never read in synagogue.

Is that true? Yeah, I said that that is true. It's just that's not the only one that's that's not read.

John asked this question today. I bought Fox's Book of Martyrs on Amazon or Amazine.

Yeah, any thoughts? Yeah, it's good. I mean, it'll encourage you to see what our forefathers dealt with and then after you get done reading that read the rest of the

Puritans because that was actually written by Puritan by the way. So John Fox, you know, so but read read the rest of Puritans, which

I was going to jokingly say this true is, you know, having a conference on the Puritans and I've been talking about the fact that I'm I'm probably going to get rid of much of my library so I could downsize and you know, many of the guys at the conference were begging for all of my

Puritan works because I have many but yeah, Brandon Shiggett said he was one of them. But the reality is is that you know, if I don't sell those

Puritan works, you can blame Brandon because for his conference, I had to go back and read a bunch of Puritans and I fell in love with them again, and I don't know.

I'm sure I'm going to get rid of them. Just it's hard to get rid of them again. All in love with their covenant theology.

Yeah, well, they don't they don't modify it a little bit. No, no, so I am holding to what they hold to today.

Not argument, got it. See, I'm just saying I'm in line with him now.

A question that came up for you Brandon, Mr. Scalf, are you continuing at TMS, the Master Seminary, which is what

TMS stands for? I don't know who KT and Jesus is.

Am I continuing at TMS? Am I quitting in TMS? Yeah, I have no plans on quitting. I'm a year and a half deep.

The money continues to support you to go, right? As long as the money comes in and as long as I can get out there.

But no, I mean, it's a great program and if anybody out there is desiring to do a doctorate,

I would commend that program to you. It's phenomenal. It's geared towards preaching and don't hold my preaching against them.

I'm still learning, but it's great. It's a fantastic. You know, it's really funny you say that because I think you and I have talked about this.

But since you started there, there is a significant difference in your preaching.

Just the way you preach and the way that I can tell you're organizing your sermons and then delivering your sermons.

It's night and day from when you know, we first met and I was first listening to you preach.

It is a night and day difference. And I think now you're, you were a strong preacher before.

Now, you're an even stronger preacher. Yeah, I think

I would compare with that. I think it has helped because I got to see a couple years ago compared to recent.

So, but you know, the thing that hasn't changed is he still frets up until the last second.

He gets himself sick with with the sermon. So, he's got to get over that part. But hey, just saying.

So, well, truth be told, I'm a complete introvert and I hate public speaking. Like if it wasn't for the fact that I felt called to preach and to edify

God's people with the word, I wouldn't. This is not a profession I would choose for myself if it's a profession. I hate it.

I hate public speaking. Regardless of whether or not it was the conference. I mean, every Sunday, I'm like, oh dear goodness, you know.

Well, I would agree with you. I mean, I am, people find this hard to believe because here I do these things publicly.

I go out on the streets and evangelize. I go out and do things that seem like I'm an extrovert, but I kind of,

I'm happy as sitting at home with my bride, just being with her or just reading a book.

I'm really content on my own, you know, just just give me a book.

Actually, Brandon, you know, give me a book in a sauna and I'm good, you know. We're talking about that, you know, sit there,

I'm perfectly content that way, but yeah, but God has gifted me to teach, not that I want to, it's something he did when

I got saved and therefore I do it, not out of comfort. I mean, and you may feel better with this,

Brandon. I remember when I was the first church I pastored and I was running and I had a watch that if I put my thumb on it, it would give me my pulse rate.

And I know that when I preach, people can't see it, but I can, I mean, the sweat goes down my back.

I'm just, you know, my heart rate's going crazy. I was, and I get nervous. I mean, some people will sometimes see that like I, my leg will be shaking, my hands will be shaking because I know what

I'm about to do is stand up and say, thus says the Lord and it weighs on me and I don't like being up in front of people anyway.

So what's interesting about it is I'm stick my thumb on my, on my watch because I was just curious.

What is my pulse before I go up to start preaching? And my son looks at me because he's, he, when he's, he looked at his watch.

Dude, my pulse. Okay, my resting pulse rates usually in the 60s.

Okay. My pulse was a hundred and twenty before I got up to preach.

120 beats per minute. Most people get 120 when they're like running. Just sitting in the pew before getting up to preach.

My heart is racing like that. And that's interesting. Go ahead.

No, I just said that's pretty consistent. Yeah. I mean, that's kind of interesting for me. It's the exact opposite leading up to the preaching moment.

I am just all sorts of undone. I'm anxious. I'm trembling.

I'm just like, I can't contain myself. I'm I really am nervous about what's about to happen.

I'm fearful that I'll disappoint God, all these sorts of things. Then once I start, I'm good.

Like that's it. Like I'm where I need to be. I feel like my brain is working where it wasn't working before, you know, and then afterwards, after the preaching moment, then

I look back and I'm like, oh, that was horrible or this, that, or the other. But in the moment, like once I'm up there, like all my nerves, everything just dissipates and I'm just focused on the word.

Yeah, and preaching. That's the reason I don't, and this is where you know, you're, you're going on, you know, doing a doctorate on preaching.

So many preach about having that hook, right? And we talked about this your place where they teach you get that hook right at the beginning.

I can't do that. Okay for me, the, the, now with the message I did at your conference was harder because I didn't have a

Bible passage. But for me, what I do is read scripture. That's, that's my hook.

I read scripture, I pray and I get into it because I get so nervous with it that trying to start the message.

I've tried it when I was, when I was first preaching and I would, I did better in seminary than I did before the church because in seminary was fellow students.

It just seemed like an exercise. It wasn't, didn't seem to carry the same weight as preaching before congregation. And so when

I was preaching before congregation, I tried to do this hook. I was just so nervous and messing things up.

For me, it's just start with scripture. Once, once I start with scripture and I'm reading scripture, I'm fine.

Got in scripture. I'm okay. But I don't know what it was about the conference. I got like overly emotional.

Like you can't really tell in the video. I went back and I looked at it. But, and I don't even know if you could tell in person from the video.

I know. Yeah. Well, but see, I, I could tell because I knew what was going on, right? I was with you the other days before and I, you know, yeah.

So I think Paul Washer gets emotional when he preaches. So you're in good. I almost cried like five times before I even got to like reading my passage and I was just like, that is not a typical brain scalp situation.

So we're not going to be able to get to this, but I was thinking of doing this live and Brandon, you'll appreciate this.

So this popped up on Facebook yesterday. This guy

Haps Addison. He put out a video. Let me see if I can get the video to show up.

Oh, I guess I have to how do I get it to show what? Well, his title, his title was, you remember what the actual title was?

It was something like it's the real Andrew Rappaport or something. Yeah, new at noon.

Yeah, it was. Yeah, I texted him and I was like, hey Haps. What's going on here? Yeah, he was like, no, it's all good.

And I was like, all right, awesome. Yeah, hold on. Because because you were the one that actually said this, how

I became aware of it is yeah, you, you, you. So here's, here's um, let me, let me share this instead and show what you had sent me.

Now, where is it? I guess I can't, I can't share that. All right.

Well, what he said was the truth about Andrew Rappaport tomorrow at noon. I just put that out there.

I have no idea what this is about. I said to Drew, maybe we could have some fun and watch this live on the show and that way we could respond to this.

It's nine minutes long, but no, we don't have nine minutes left in the show. So I'll say this.

We always have Anthony time. Yeah, but there's always time for Anthony time. Yeah, but we don't, no.

So, so the thing is that I think that he,

I did notice that in his, where he was live, he tagged the

Apologetics live. So I'm going to assume, like when you sent it to me, I'm like,

I'd, you know, I don't think I've offended HAPS or done anything to HAPS. And I'll be honest with you. I think if I did do anything to offend

HAPS, he would call me directly and I wouldn't hear about it from a live. Okay, but but yeah, so I think that I think that what, you know, whatever it is, the fact that he tagged

Apologetics live, it probably is a negative. The fact that you talked to him and he said it was all good. I guess it's all good.

Melissa says that Andrew can head to bed and let the young guy take over. The problem is

I still have to make the podcast of it. Okay, so but but yeah, let me just real quick.

Let folks know some places that I'll be unless, Brandon, you have anything else that you wanted to jump on with or nope.

I just was trying to cause a little bit of trouble. Well, good. That is your specialty. So this

Saturday, if there's anybody in the Philadelphia area, I will be at Langhorne Presbyterian Church for a men's conference that does,

I think it starts at 9 or 930, but just contact Langhorne Presbyterian Church and get the details there.

Obviously, it's for men only. but so that's this this

Saturday, May 13th. I will be after that. I'll be up in Redwood City.

That is Northern California on July 16th. I'll be doing a seminar at Grace Bible Church on the 17th.

You're going to be June 17th. You're going to be up at Grace Bible Church. Oh, I think it's in July, my bad. Okay. Why?

I was so excited. You're going to be there in July? Yeah. Next to the last doctoral seminar.

So, okay. We'll have to talk. I'll be curious. So, okay. So I'll be in Redwood City at Grace Bible Church in Redwood City.

And so I'll be preaching there and then the weekend after that I'll be down in Los Angeles to be able to speak with some folks, help folks at Living Waters to train up future evangelists.

I will be doing a tour. I don't know the exact date yet in DC. In July, somewhere between the 20th.

I have listed here 20th to 29th. I don't know why that is because it should be a 29th to 30th, but somewhere between that the 20th to 30th, one of those days,

I'll be at the Museum of the Bible to do a tour. So, if you're in that area, just contact info at strivingforeturning .org

and I will make sure to get you those dates. And I will be out in Idaho August 12th to September 5th.

I'm spending some time up at the best church that I know of with Pastor Jim Osmond up in Kootenai Community Church, but I will be doing some speaking around that area.

So, if you're up in Idaho area, I will be out that way. And then I also want to mention the family conference that I had to cancel for those who follow and know that I had gotten sick.

I had to get a look at you shaking your head. The pastor said it turned out to be a good thing because it's actually a bigger event now.

Two different churches getting involved, but that's in Mattoon, Illinois. And so, if you want to check that out, it is go to ProvidenceMattoon .com.

So, that's at Providence Church. So, ProvidenceMattoon, M -A -T -T -O -O -N .com to get the details.

I'll be speaking at that conference. And then I did mention briefly, we don't have, I don't have all the details yet, but John Harris, I mentioned his men's retreat.

That's September 21st to 24th. I'll be speaking there. So, if you're anywhere in any of those places, please let me know, please come say hello.

I, I, you guys can, do not know how much it means to me when you guys come up to me and say, hey,

I listened to your rap report. I listened to Apologetics Live. We do this. I mean, at least Apologetics Live, I get to see

Drew and Brandon here, but usually I don't, you know, rap report, I don't see anybody. Jason's asking, coming to Georgia anytime,

Andrew. I don't have any plans to go to Georgia, but I, the thing I say Jason all the time is, if you want to get me to Georgia, the best thing to do is talk to your pastor.

Say, hey, let's get this guy out to preach on a Sunday or even better, do a weekend seminar so we could spend time with the church, helping the church.

And if the pastor says, well, how much does it cost? You just say, just invite him because he doesn't care. And we don't.

We hope the church would cover travel, but they don't always because we don't have a speaking fee.

We don't ask that everything gets covered. And if you, if you do end up going to Jason's church, doing anything at Jason's church,

I'll be there too because we live relatively close to one another. So good. I'll be going.

Is that like a twofer? You get two, Andrew's squared. You get two for price of one or? Well, I mean, I wouldn't do any speaking.

You do the speaking. I'm just coming to hang out. There you go.

So I might have missed something, but KT says, yeah, Andrew dishes it out.

He could take it. So I must have missed a joke. I'm looking up to see maybe that's over.

Melissa's thing about heading to bed. yeah, I see. I see what is

KT said. Right, Melissa, except Andrew's it except it's it's not age.

He does not. He does need to be careful with his health. Anthony should come back for an extra long shows.

You don't want to Joe Rogan this bad boy do four hours deep. Yeah. No, actually, the reality is most people tune out like I see the numbers.

Most people tune out after, you know, by two hours people have already dropped off now from the only people that really like the extra long ones are the ones who are still in the chat right now, correct?

Yeah, it's only like five people. Well, it's it's well the people that we have more people watching than those in the chat, but and way more than they'll listen to the podcast.

But those are some places will be I want to encourage you guys. I know the sign up isn't out yet for cruciform for next year, but I like I said at the beginning you should check that out be following cruciform so you know when their conference is it'll be in Oklahoma.

You do not want to miss that conference. I've said that at the beginning Brandon, you could go back and relisten to the podcast to hear what you missed, but we were praising the work that you're doing there with cruciform conference with without you knowing that we're we didn't want to you.

We didn't want to say positive things about you with you knowing about it. But now that you're here, we're stuck with it.

Sorry. Yeah, you know, I left a to come down on Drew for bailing out. Yeah, we did.

Oh, I don't worry. I didn't I do that because you do you know, here's the thing Brandon. Do you know where he was? We actually discovered during the show where he was.

He was actually at that is a lie. Don't listen to him. Look, look Andrew. I'm a part of cruciform ministries.

This is a lot. He was at the hashtag dot post mill conference that James way was speaking at that's how he knows

James was there. See the worst part about this year.

What's that? I have a photoshopped image to prove it. The worst part this year was

I didn't have anybody to VJ. So I had to get up there and do like the introductions and stuff like that, but that's not my cup of tea.

So it was very awkward, but we did it and if you need I'll help you out with that.

I mean, oh, yeah, you would be a great DJ. Yeah, we could we could figure something out. So and hey, I just saw this so I should mention this.

I just see a Jackson size give we just giving smiley faces. So you're saying why you putting that up because he is a brother from Philippines.

So I should mention we have now we are returning to the

Philippines April 24th to May 6th. Are the dates and so here's something that I will ask as folks here.

We go to the Philippines. I pay my own way to get there, right? The ministry has to pay for us to get there to administer it over there.

So if you can help us out, I will ask you if you could donate striving for turning .org

slash support. If there's a way to put Philippines trip, just put that in there that will help us get to the

Philippines. Take care of everything for us to get there and take care of ministering there.

The this is a big deal because over there the Philippines what we're planning to do is not just do a conference like we've done before but I am looking and this is a plea to any of the

Filipino the Phil Philippine listeners out there. Please I am looking to for two debates while I'm out there.

If you know any Roman Catholics willing to debate Catholicism, we are looking to set up a debate on Catholicism while I'm there a second debate that we're looking to do is if there's anybody willing to debate the continuation of the charismatic gifts.

I desperately want to do that debate. There's these are two areas in the Philippines where it is everywhere.

This is the biggest problem. I think in the Philippines is that the northern part of a bunch of Roman Catholics and NAR word of faith charismatics in the

South. It's all Islam. So maybe we'll do a debate in Davos on Islam if anyone wants to debate that one, but here's here's where we're looking for those debates.

If any of you from the Philippines know anyone willing to debate, please contact us at info at striving for Eternity dot org.

So that's that's info at striving for Eternity dot org.

All right, that's the way to contact us greatly appreciate if you guys could help us out that way and and let me let me just help drew.

He took he did the show last time. He's got to get this right if he's going to end the show.

He's going to end the show, you know before we go playing the final word drew.

I should I should just make you have to do it. See you see if you fumble again or if you went back and learned strive to make today an eternal day for the glory.

All other religious systems are based on system of morality of good works. What makes Christianity unique?

It is not a system of morality. It is about Jesus Christ Buddha is dead.

Muhammad is dead. Joseph Smith is dead. Mary Baker Eddie is dead, but Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

If Jesus Christ was not both fully man and fully God there would be no payment of sin. This was a debate in the first century.

Jesus Christ was fully man. It's important to note that he did not have a human father.

Therefore. He did not inherit a sin nature Jesus Christ. Not only had to be fully man, but he also had to be without sin never breaking any part of God's law.

If Jesus was not a man then people would have no payment of sins, but Jesus Christ is also fully

God Jesus had to be God in order to pay an eternal fine only an eternal being can pay an eternal fine.