Matt Slick and Black Hebrew Israelite Minister AHSH Rawchaa F. O. G.

Hey, F -O -G, Ash -ra -sha -ah.

Okay, trying to pronounce your name right.

How are you doing?

I'm okay, how you doing?

Doing all right, hanging in there.

So, tell us about yourself.

You know, I'm just a believer in Christ.

I wanted to ask a question because I heard you talking to that guy that called in on your show.

He was talking to you about talking to a Hebrew Israelite, and I wanted to ask you about a

scripture that shows God discriminating against other nations, and I wanted to get your take on it.

Not so much argue you down or anything like that, but maybe some exegesis from an expert might

add some clarity to the situation.

Okay, what's the verse?

Not that I'm an expert, but.

So, it's in the book of Leviticus, chapter 25, and it starts off talking

about the indentured servants, and then it juxtaposes them from other

types of servitude.

When you talk to that guy about racism, would you agree that if I

showed preferential treatment to a certain people group and said, you guys can't be slaves,

but these people can, is that a form of racism?

Depends.

It depends?

Well, in that particular situation, if I'm saying that these people, because of who their fathers are,

they can be slaves, but not you guys.

That would be racism, I would think, and it could be whites upon whites, too, because a lot of people don't know that

there were white slaves in America, too, and it's not talked about.

But, you know, that's good, because in context of what we're talking about, I believe

it was the Irish, right?

They would be the indentured servants being talked about here in Leviticus.

If I may, I'll just illustrate it.

It says in verse 41, again, Leviticus 25.

I'm gonna start at 42, actually.

It says, oops, I just slipped.

Sorry about that.

So I'm looking at 39, actually.

It says, if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor and be sold unto thee, thou shall not

compel him to serve as a bond servant, but as a hired servant and as a sojourner,

he shall be with thee and shall serve thee into the year of Jubilee.

So they have that period in which they serve, then they go free, unless they are married and they wanna

stay with their wife and kids.

Are you familiar with this?

I've read about it before, but it's not top of my head, it's not there.

Okay, I'll just read it as a refresher, and then hopefully any of the gentlemen on the panel can add to it if they

are familiar.

It says, and then he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and

he shall return into his own family and unto the possession of his father shall he return.

For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt.

They shall not be sold as bondmen.

Thou shall not rule over him with rigor, but thou shall fear thy God.

So, that's where it says they only get to be indentured servants.

Any of you gentlemen familiar?

Well, the countrymen he's talking about, it looks like what's going on is that the fellow countrymen of the Israelites are not

to be a chattel slavery.

There's different kinds of slavery in the Bible that was used.

Exactly.

And a lot of people don't know that.

So Jewish slaves would be set free at their jubilee and non -Jewish slaves were to be kept perpetually.

Isn't that racist?

Well, I don't know.

You see, because, like for example, slaves could be beaten, but so could the Jews.

And people don't know that.

They say only the slaves are beaten.

Not with rods.

No, the Jews were told and commanded to be beaten with rods as well.

It was average upon them.

The issue of skin color, in my research of skin color issues back then,

it wasn't like it is now.

Or people are more prejudiced about stuff like that.

It wasn't that.

It was more your culture, your ethnicity as a people group, like the Assyrians

or the Jordanians or whoever.

And you're from that area because there's often a mix of people within that.

So they were more concerned with how you look and how you spoke and things like that.

And go ahead.

No, I was just saying, I agree.

Like the concept of race that we have now is more so dealing with the color cast system.

That was fairly recently.

Whereas, like you said, we're looking at different cultures.

The way where we would determine race back then is by your father.

So the same way the Torah of the Israelites would present themselves by the house of their fathers and

that dictating their tribes.

In like manner, they would discriminate against other people groups according to who their father

was.

For example, there was even a time where the tribe of Benjamin were Israelites.

There was a saying going around the nation that they needed to refrain from dealing with the tribe of Benjamin.

But if I look at race, just the base model of what that is and racism, that preferential

treatment, when it says verse 44, both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shall

have, shall be of the heathen that are around about you.

Of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moreover, the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy.

And of their families that are with you, which they begin in your land, and they shall be your

possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them for a possession.

They shall be your bondmen forever, but over your brethren, the children of Israelites, thou shall

not rule over with rigor.

Now, the part that piques my interest the most is that when you look at that rigor, it says you're not

supposed to rule over one with severity, but the other one that you can, that rigor, that's the

Hebrew word, perech, or however you pronounce it properly.

I don't wanna offend anybody who's a fluid Hebrew speaker.

What do you say to that aspect of this law?

You're going quickly, and I'm trying to find the verses to look at it.

You're using a different version, so it's hard to follow.

But what I did was, that's all right.

In my BHI notes, I put that, no, in my slavery notes, I have

an outline on slavery, 13 pages long, and I just added that pericope of Leviticus 25,

39 -43.

I've already analyzed the next few verses, 24 -46.

I mean, I just, I got my notes on that.

So here, I have to look at that.

And when we talk about things like this, I always like to be more cautious than I normally would

by saying, I need to look and see.

Because I do know that a lot of times, and I'm glad you used the word, that a lot of times the words have different

meanings in different contexts within the Hebrew.

And I wanna know what's going on.

So because this is a potentially touchy subject for a lot of people, then I slow down because I don't want

to be misconstrued.

But if you were to write, like right now, let me get my notes.

If you, right now, I have Leviticus 25, 39 -43 as a note,

and then the issue, okay?

And so I wanna type out what you see the issue is, and then that'll clue me in on what to

look at in it so I can develop a response.

Okay.

So what's the issue?

And don't go too fast.

I'm gonna type it.

I'm gonna type it out fast as I can.

Okay, I'll definitely pace myself with this one.

So the issue is that if God is not racist, why is there a law in the

Torah, which is the righteousness of the Israelites, why is there a law in the Torah

that juxtaposes the other nations from the Israelites in such a way that the nations around

the Israelites can be oppressed or ruled over harshly or indefinitely

while an Israelite only has to serve for seven years?

That's a good question.

I have two theories about that already.

So they can be ruled harshly, but not so with their countrymen.

Okay.

So let me read this back to you.

If God is not racist, why is there a law in the Torah that juxtaposes the other nations from the Israelites so that they

can be ruled harshly, but not so with their countrymen?

All right?

Yeah.

Okay.

So one of the reasons that God was harsh with other nations is because

it was through the nation of Israel that the Messiah would come.

So he would often say to the Jews after a warning the false nations, go out there and kill them all,

because he did not want the corruption, idolatry, sins to

infect the Israelite nation and thereby thwart

the arrival of the Messiah.

So God is seen as being tough, but like the Canaanites, go wipe out man, woman and children.

Well, history shows us that they got warnings from God and various prophets for like two or 300

years before that happened.

So God's patient, but you know.

So that's one thing.

The other thing I think might be that the reason that the

Jews are not to be permanently bound is because it might reflect

the issue of salvation.

Because Jesus was sent covenantally only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matthew 15, 24, and that

the Jews represent the people of God and I'm gonna do this loosely, the Jews represent the

redemptive work of God as he's working through them, but they weren't all redeemed, but the redemptive work of God through a chosen people

and that the chosen ones are not to be permanently enslaved to sin.

They'll be set free from it.

And I think that kind of model is why it's imposed upon the countrymen that way.

That's a theory I've got, okay.

That's an interesting view as to why, and I won't necessarily give any pushback, but I will ask you a

counter question.

I thought of another scripture that it rings in my head as what

at least could be perceived as racism here.

And it talks about usury or adding interest onto a loan in layman terms.

But let me see where it says, it says Deuteronomy 23 and 17.

And then we're gonna read through 20 if that's all right.

It says, thou shall not lend upon usury to thy brother, usury of money,

usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury.

And this is King James Version just saying, you can't add interest to your brother or anything that you give him.

He needs to give you back the principal and nothing more.

You can't oppress him in that way.

But when it comes to the strangers, it says unto a stranger, thou mayest lend upon usury,

but unto thy brother, thou shall not lend upon usury that the Lord thy God may bless

thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whether thou goest to possess

it.

And, you know, anybody can argue it's so that the Israelites could remain strong

economically, right?

If you're impoverishing the people who are the foundation of the nation, you guys are gonna collapse eventually.

That would be my why there, but it still looks like a form of racism because

why not make everybody Israelite?

Because when you look at the word usury, it's the Hebrew word neshak, and it means to strike, to sting,

or figuratively to oppress.

And that's just at the most base levels of the

definition there.

What are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, like the other comment, and I'd have to study it to make sure.

And now let me look, see if I have anything on Deuteronomy 23, 17.

And I have stuff on Leviticus numbers, Deuteronomy 25, 25, 13, but not 20,

not 17, what was it?

17, 23, 17, so I don't have anything on that.

So again, I think it might be the issue of bondage that the Israelite people were reflecting

the truth of who God was in the messianic hope.

Someone once said, if you're confused about something in the scriptures, put Jesus in it and see if it makes

sense.

And I never forgot that, and it's true.

So I would have to look into that and see.

Now, one other issue is we have to define what racism is.

Because racism today, hey, you're a black guy, I'm a white guy, therefore I'm better than you because you're a black guy, that's

racism.

And it can work in reverse, but when God says only for

my people, that the people he has called, and then the other nations are to be

wiped out, ignored, et cetera, they could be called racism.

And in the broad definition, it is racism, but it's not the way we think.

There's what's called denotation and connotation.

Denotation's a literal meaning, and connotation's the emotional baggage that goes along with it.

So denotation of slavery, that is one of the words that has a

lot of connotation to it because of our history here in America.

But when we go back to ancient Israel and the Middle East, I did a lot of study on it years ago, and

I can refresh my memory.

It was bad, slavery was bad back then.

And believe it or not, the people of Israel treated them very good, comparatively

speaking.

Not that it was always great, but they were not considered property in the same sense as an object owned

was because if a slave, the word slave, there's different words for it.

I've done a lot of research on this, and they're used in different senses.

We don't have an English word that reflects the actual Hebrew word for slave in the different kinds of words for slavery.

We don't have that differentiation, that's a problem.

But at any rate, if a slave were to escape his master and wanted asylum,

it was to be granted to him, and he was not to be returned.

But property was to be returned.

This is one of the things that people don't understand.

The slaves had rights, and they could own property and heads of households and things like that.

But anyway, back to the usury thing.

That's something I'd have to see.

I don't think it's racist.

I think it is God collectively saying, redemptively

speaking, the people of Israel are only to have certain kinds of oppression put upon them because ultimately it's

symbolizing the Messiah coming through them who sets us free from all kinds of oppressions and variations.

And I think that's one of the underlining principles there.

I can prove it's not racist.

My bad.

So what church do you go to, Osh?

I'm a minister.

Oh, you're a minister?

Yeah, I'm a street minister, fire of God.

So do you believe in the Trinity?

No.

No?

No, sir.

Is Jesus God in flesh?

No, he's ain't God.

Okay.

I'm what you would call a black Hebrew Israelite.

I'm sorry?

I said, I'm what you would call a black Hebrew Israelite.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, you're not a Christian, okay.

I follow Christ, but I'm not a Christian.

No, you don't.

I don't hold to those tenets.

But you know what?

You're intelligent and articulate and you're polite.

I would like to keep in contact with you.

And discuss things with you.

I would like to very much.

If I could, I want to ask one more thing.

I'm sure that you're of the school of thought that Isaiah 14 came to pass when the

Israelites left Babylon.

The one that was ruled over by Nebuchadnezzar.

That again, I'd have to look in context to see.

Okay, I would like to read it.

And again, I don't want to hog it up.

I like the discourse.

If anybody else wants to chime in, that'd be fantastic.

So Isaiah 14 says, for the Lord will have mercy on Jacob.

And will yet choose Israel.

And set them in their own land.

And the strangers will be joined with them.

And they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

And the people shall take them and bring them to their place.

And this is the part that interests me the most.

What verse?

It comes to analyzing the mainstream doctrine of what salvation looks like,

right?

It says, and also Israel will possess them in the land of

the Lord for servants and handmaids.

And we will take them captives whose captives they were.

And they shall rule over their oppressors.

When you were talking about Deuteronomy where we were just reading.

And you were saying you would imagine that the way that slavery was to be governed or

servitude for lack of better words was to be governed under the Torah.

That it might have something that was meant to reflect what was going to happen during

the time of Christ.

Now, this is saying that the Israelites are going to be receiving a salvation in which they will be going back to their

land to rule over their oppressors and have them in the land of the Lord for servants and

handmaids.

Our impression of this text is that this will happen as you mentioned under Christ.

And I think that the Torah reflects the way that that rulership is gonna take place in the latter

days as well.

What are your views on that?

I'd have to look at it to see.

Are you talking about verses Isaiah 14, one and two?

One and two and reading down to three.

So Isaiah 14, one and two.

Which is actually the most important part, but.

Dude, what I would like, seriously, I'd like if you were to take all these pericopes that you've

talked about and just cite them out and say, here's the issue, here's the claim.

Okay.

Email them to me.

Okay.

But I can't promise, I'll get to it right away.

I got to preach on Sunday.

I'm doing d -men stuff.

My wife's health is not as good as it needs to be.

I'm really behind in a lot of stuff, but I'm interested in this.

And sometimes what I'll do in bed is just read for an hour before I go to sleep.

So I can read stuff like this, but I want those.

Here's what I do.

Okay.

I'll just tell you flat out.

What I do is I like it when people of different groups would disagree.

I say, send that to me.

Give me the verse.

Give me the argument.

Send it to me.

That way I can go look at it in context and I write and I do research.

And that's what I want to do.

So if you were to do that, that would be helpful.

And then give me your, and if you want, you'll have your email stuff too.

You know, send me your contact information and stuff like that.

And we can have some conversations.

Yeah, I'll put it in the background.

FireGodClasswork at gmail .com.

I'm going to put it in the chat.

That way you can just.

Yeah, if you put it in the private chat, we can access it.

Like I just dropped the link.

Oh, I think you put it there.

Good.

I just dropped a link in there about Matt's section on slavery.

There's 18 or 20 different articles that touch on some of the fine points you were talking about of

servants, of your brothers, of foreigners, of sojourners and different things like that.

How it was practiced in the day.

So you can have access to all those articles in that section.

Fire of God.

Okay.

There's one more scripture I'd like you to look at during your time.

Deuteronomy 30 is very important.

Versus one.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

I get to my notes to put that, to write it in.

So Deuteronomy, hold on, 30.

Yeah, Deuteronomy 30 verses one through seven.

In my courses, I call it the salvation clause.

Okay.

And so, and okay, what do you say about that?

So again, I call it the salvation clause because the Most High is apparently

making a covenant with the Israelites and he's telling them, this is what happens if you keep the commandments.

These are the commandments you need to keep.

And here he's acknowledging that there are curses that will come if you don't keep them.

So here he's talking about what happens if you want to get back on my good side.

And here's what happens when you get on my good side.

It embeds the punishment of the Gentiles or the heathen or the goyim who

are used to punish the Israelites.

It shows a punishment that goes directly on those individuals.

I'm gonna read it.

It says, it shall come to pass when all these things will come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have

set before thee.

And thou shall call them to mind among all nations whether the Lord thy God hath driven thee

and shall return unto the Lord by God and shall obey his voice according to all that I command thee

this day that thou and thy children with all thine heart and all thy soul that

then the Lord thy God will turn by captivity.

It says he's gonna gather them out of all the nations where they're scattered and put them in the land promised to their fathers.

Now, this is the part here that I'm talking about where it says that the punishment that

the Israelites received under the curses would then be put on those said goyim.

It says in verse seven, and the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies

and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.

So that's a very important thing to look at in the salvation clause.

And I wanted to see if you had a opinion on that text.

I've already heard vocab Malone's opinion somewhat.

He was a little bit elusive with it, but I feel like you'll be a little bit more clear.

Well, I don't understand what the issue is.

So in verse seven, the Lord your God will inflict those who curse your enemies and on those who hate you, you persecute you.

Are you familiar with the suzerain vassal treaty pattern?

No.

Covenantal treating pattern.

This looks like it's a covenantal treaty pattern and covenants are ratified under certain clauses,

certain conditions, and it can be abrogated in certain conditions as well.

I'm not saying this is the case.

I'm just saying this is part of it.

And so, plus it's the address of who's being addressed and what the issue is.

So let me get this straight.

So Most High is making a covenant with Israel, with the Israelites.

Keep the commandments, curses if you don't keep them, and what to do to get back on the good side of

God.

It shows punishment of the non -Jews all nations.

Then verse seven, the curses will be put upon the enemies.

And so that's what I'm trying to summarize what you said as accurately as possible.

And what's the issue?

Is this about how to get saved?

Yeah, it says that if they repent, basically it's telling them to repent, teach the generations that are following them to

repent, then the Most High will give them salvation and put the curses of Deuteronomy on their enemies.

That's right.

Okay, so they get saved by doing what?

Keeping the law?

No, they get saved by God's promise.

See, if it was about just keeping the law, then it nullifies any of God's promises.

Say, for example, God said, I promise if you keep the law, I'm not gonna hear you.

You're not gonna then be able to keep the law and get God to say, hey, thanks.

Here's some extra credit points.

The Most High has already made the promise here, and that's grace.

That's a promise to our forefathers that we didn't necessarily earn.

Now what we do is we repent.

Salvation being the forgiveness of sins?

Yeah.

How does verse seven promote the forgiveness of sins?

So the forgiveness of sins is in the beginning.

It says -.

Which verse?

Let me see here.

It says, if thou shall return unto the Lord thy God and shall obey

his voice, according to all that I command thee this day

Which verse?

I need to know the verse.

Sorry.

Verse what?

Verse two.

Two.

Verses one and two.

The end of one says, call to mind your sins.

Verse two says, repent.

Call to mind and repent.

All right.

Okay.

And return to your Lord your God, obeying with all your heart and your soul, according to what I've commanded today, you and your sons, and the Lord restore you from your

captivity.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

It's all right.

Okay.

So, are you willing to have some good dialogues and discussions on this stuff?

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay.

And you won't get offended?

I like Jameer a lot more than Bo Cap alone.

He got a bit rabid on me.

Well, what I'm seeing so far is exegetical fallacies and logic errors on your part.

But you seem pretty level -headed.

I think you're the kind of guy I could sit across a table with and go, no, no, no, this is why.

And you go, no, no, no, because we'd have a discussion.

That's what I kind of get from you.

I like that.

I hope I'm right.

But see, this is what I want to know.

I need specifics.

This verse is related to this.

And then I can deal with it specifically.

Because my notes are that in verses one to two, call to mind and repentance is what gets you salvation.

Right?

Right.

Okay, so at this point then, okay, see, gets you salvation.

Then I would ask, I'd be curious, because I completely disagree with that premise.

But I would then be curious to know who you thought Jesus was who you think God is, the nature of God.

I can ask you a lot of questions about that.

And stuff about Christ biblically.

So, you know, it'd be interesting to have some dialogue with you about these things.

But I consider BHI to be a cult.

Okay?

I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's a non -Christian religion that leads people to damnation.

So if you know that I believe that, I mean, I'm not mean about it, but that's my position.

I mean, a Christian would have to embrace that they are a cult as well.

Paul said that he was a part of a cult.

So we're just going to stand at two different ends of the table claiming to be from two different cults, which

is fine with me, because I'm proud of my Lord and Savior, my King, who is the Son of God.

What does the term Son of God mean?

The Son of God, it just, I mean, it means exactly what it says it means.

I believe that he was the firstborn of all creatures.

What does that mean?

What does it sound like it means?

Oh, he was created?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

One at a time.

I get fancy when I say it, which is why I'm saying, what does it sound like it means?

Firstborn, what does firstborn mean?

It means that he was born first.

So if I'm going to be as scientific as possible without being able to sit and see and

watch it all happen, Jesus was the first one to be materialized

in a world where there was nothing else made material by what we would call the Heavenly Father.

He's the first one to be material.

Okay, so I'm going to take a sidestep pretty quickly.

I'm going to illustrate something.

So the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan,

he was a hated person.

He was a half -breed according to the Jewish mindset.

They hated the Samaritans.

And just don't worry about, I know how to, trust me, just Mr. Kid, I got this.

I gather information first, because errors are interrelated.

You got to get as much information as you can first and tackle each thing.

So an example of something is that when he found that

man who was naked and unconscious, do you know why that is significant, that he was naked

and unconscious?

Well, the Israelites, what we believe is that we're naked and unconscious.

We're unfamiliar with who we are.

We don't have an identity because we're identifying with the, we just touched on this word material,

the materials of the world.

I would take that in parallel with the prodigal son where he gave up all of his substance.

And when he needed substance, the world didn't have anything to give him.

So in that sense, we are naked, but we are unconscious in a sense where the scriptures

say that if you wander out of the way of understanding, you remain in the

congregation of the dead and you are blind, which is actually one of the curses of Deuteronomy.

Well, that's how I take that.

Well, you make a lot of exegetical mistakes, all right?

The first thing you always wanna do is go into the context and look at the context immediately.

Think of concentric circles like a target.

What does it mean right there?

What do the words mean right there?

And if you do what you just did, which Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian science do, they go to someplace else,

they get a theme and then they impose it in there.

The reason that it's important that he was naked and unconscious is so that you wouldn't know where he's from.

You wouldn't know by his accent, what language, what culture, what nation he was from.

You wouldn't know by his clothing where he was from either way, either.

Because the parable is about who's your neighbor.

The neighbor, right?

That's what Jesus was talking about, the neighbor.

Who is he?

Because in that culture, you did not talk to Samaritans and the Samaritan

was risking his life.

So this is, and I go into a lot about this.

That's why.

It's like, for example, in the prodigal son, which you brought up, the father running to the son was a sign of

humiliation.

When the son said to the father, give me my inheritance, he's equivalently saying, I want you dead now because you

never got the inheritance until after the father died.

And so there's all kinds of stuff.

And so what you did, I'm just being polite with you, but what you did was you committed exegetical errors right away.

And the reason you did that is because you're not aware of how to exegete scripture.

And what you, but it looks like you've been taught a thematic umbrella and every sub thing has

to be interpreted in light of that.

And I could ask you questions, I bet you, the more I got to know you and your position, I could ask specific questions theologically

out of scripture that you wouldn't be able to answer,.

That you'd have a lot of problems with.

It's always the case whenever I do this.

I would say that if someone is unfamiliar with the angle that you're coming from, when

you're confident in what you're saying and the other person's just getting to know you, it's

very easy to approach with a dialectic that will put you in a seat where you know exactly what you're talking

about, but the other person doesn't.

But the fact of the matter is that the scripture saying that under the new covenant, you won't have to

teach every man his neighbor saying, know the Lord.

Why do I bring that up?

Is because we're in a place where everybody's needing to be taught, know the Lord.

You got the Holy Spirit one day, right?

According to your theology.

And then I would imagine you went to seminary school where what, you got more of the Holy Spirit?

No, you got doctrinal footnotes.

You got pointed towards certain books that you can read.

You got pointed towards certain methodologies that other people had confidence in.

So what I would want is show me where culturally I'm mistaking what I'm reading, as

opposed to just telling me I'm mistaking what I'm reading.

That's what I would welcome at this point.

All right.

Someone asked you a question.

Do you know what it means?

You know what it means when a Grimmy.

Snakes somebody on the wave and then the guy gets hydrocoffined?

No, what does that mean?

It means a young surfer out there with the waves with guys who are more experienced.

He crosses over him over in the more experienced wave.

It breaks polite etiquette.

And then the guy, the other guy had to go over the falls.

He had to get hydrocoffined the way he broke on him because of it.

So that's surf talk.

So this is, everything is done in, all facts exist in a culture, in a

context.

And we have to understand the context and the cultural context of various things.

And like the unrighteous steward, that's a very rich, culturally

rich thing to talk about.

And the woman who let her hair down, why was that so significant in Luke 17?

I think it is, or 14, I think, when she kissed Jesus' feet.

Why is it so significant?

That act is incredible.

And if you know what the culture is, you know why.

Or why is it important to say when a man born blind could see or

became blind, doesn't say whatever.

But anyway, Jesus heals him.

He says, I see men walking about as trees.

There's a reason for that in that culture.

And so covenantally, it's a theological thing.

And I noticed that my answers are Christocentric, but yours are not.

And Jesus says in John 5, 39, that you search the scriptures because then we think you have eternal life, but it is these that bear

witness of me.

So if you deny that Jesus Christ is God in flesh, no disrespect meant, but you're not a Christian.

You don't know who Jesus is.

And the reason this is important is because Jesus is the one who reveals the Father, Matthew 11, 27.

He's the one who says the Holy Spirit, John 14, 26 and 15, 26.

So if, and the Holy Spirit bears witness of truth, John 16.

So, and Jesus is the way, the truth and life.

So if you have the wrong Jesus, you could be wrong about everything else.

It says, Jesus is the one who opens the mind to understand scripture, Luke 24, 45.

So if you'd have Jesus wrong, and that's why I said, what's the term son of God mean?

And you said, well, it means what it means.

It means son of God, but that doesn't answer the question.

See, if I were to say to you, does the term son of God mean he's not God?

That's generally what they say.

I mean, it's written in your law, ye are gods.

So then the Elohim, it means son of God.

There's no way to read that and say what it means, unless I'm going to read into

what I believe it means doctrinally.

So what I'm saying is, we're kind of sitting here at this table where you're saying, no, you have it wrong doctrinally.

And I can sit here equally and say, no, you have it wrong doctrinally.

Like say, for example, you told me culturally, I'm missing something about the Samaritan.

And you told me that definitively, it means that the man being naked and

unconscious, his self means that no one would know where he came from, unless I misheard you.

That's correct.

Right, so when I read the text, and I'm just going to read it at face value, I can culturally that

we're talking about a wall of partition that may be being torn down here, because the Samaritans, there are

people who the Israelites used to deal with.

Are you familiar with when the Northern Kingdom brought the land of Samaria?

And then later on, they were told not to deal with the Northern Kingdom anymore

to leave him alone because he's joined under idols.

Yeah, that was a long time ago.

But what Jesus is doing here is talking, but you see the man said previously, and who is my

neighbor?

So Jesus is answering the question, who the neighbor is.

Is it a man?

A man was coming down from Jerusalem to Jericho.

It was a very dangerous road.

He fell among robbers, stripped him, beat him, leave him half dead.

A priest is going down the road.

A priest was just coming down from that area because that's where the priesthood work was.

And if he were to step within a certain distance of the body, if it was dead, that he'd become unclean.

He's got to go back up the hill and offer sacrifices.

So he goes by the other side of the road.

He's not being a true neighbor.

This is all culture.

It's all culture.

It's all cultural.

Culturally also there's the aspect where the priest is supposed to be held with a very high regard.

So the people who robbed him didn't care about him, but the stranger did, right?

The priest is supposed to be held with a very high regard because he's supposed to look after the people.

So they're not looking at themselves the way that they're supposed to be, but this stranger, he looks at them a

certain way.

So I understand culturally, and I understand that there are certain things that will

transcend what was happening at the moment when Christ says, this is what needs to happen going forward.

So you've told me that my views aren't Christocentric.

Is that how you put it?

I've never -.

They're not Christocentric.

And you don't understand the cultural context.

I can turn you onto a book where a guy did the research and others have done research -.

Just told me what, Hebrew?

No, because Christo is not Hebrew.

So what culture am I estranged from?

The biblical context and the historical context so you can understand what's going on.

Well, there's a separation Hebraically from what's going on in Greek, right?

Like you have the very physical Hebrew language and then you have the very obscure Greek language.

So culturally there can be some variances there when you're looking at the text.

But what I'm saying is that despite -.

Languages are different, but Israel was, they had Greek, Latin, and Hebrew

being spoken there.

And most people probably spoke all three because -.

But what are we reading in the New Testament?

What I'm saying is that there are Hebrew understandings that you can gain when you look at the New Testament.

If you read back into the old, you can gain an understanding of what's happening from a Hebraic lens.

Absolutely.

But you can't get a Hebraic understanding by just looking at the Greek.

So that's why I'm saying like, what cultural aspect are you saying that I miss?

Because we -.

You don't know the cultural aspect.

I'm sorry?

You just don't know the cultural aspect.

I didn't either until I studied it from experts who have studied it.

I'm sorry?

Which cultural aspect?

Well, for example, here's another one.

How was a Samaritan risking his life by helping that guy?

How was he risking his life?

Which is not said in the text, but he was.

You know how?

Well, one, I'd say, which cultural aspect?

I still want to know that.

But the Samaritans, again, I did mention this earlier that the Samaritans -.

And the Samaritans.

The Samaritans.

Thank you for correcting me on that.

The Northern Kingdom of Israel, the remnant of them that were still there, they were known not to deal with the

Judeans at the time because there was an inter -tribal warfare that took place over hundreds

of years.

What type of the parable?

In the Bible, the Most High said, don't deal with Ephraim.

He's joined unto idols.

So there's a lot of history of animosity there.

So you're saying it's not written there in the text.

I'd say either of us could draw from what we understand about what was going on

between those two sects.

Yeah, that's background information.

Right here, right here.

Yeah, right here.

Well, how is the Samaritan risking his life?

Well, if there's inter -tribal warfare, just starting off with the inter -tribal warfare, if there's inter -tribal

warfare, and then the Most High is telling the Judeans, don't deal with the Samaritans or don't deal

with the Northern Kingdom.

That's before they were called Samaritans.

Don't deal with Israel because he's joined unto idols.

If they are enemies for the sake of the doctrine, then

that could tell us that there's animosity between these two groups.

So how's he risking his life by helping this guy?

If there's inter -tribal warfare, that could be a way that the man is risking his life.

First thing you do is go to the text.

And he took him to an innkeeper and said, look, here, take care of him.

I'll be back.

That's how he's risking.

Because the man is gonna be, his family will miss him.

And if they track where he was and they find out that he was at an inn, and then, because the

Jews would go to this inn and say, oh, who brought him in?

Oh, a Samaritan did.

They're gonna instantly want to have vengeance, most probably on the Samaritan because they hate Samaritans

so much they can't even think clearly.

This is all culturally normative.

When the men walked around like trees, the reason that's important is because when the blind man started seeing the men, because in the

culture, what people would do is walk up into the hills.

I've been to Israel twice.

And there's a lot of hills up there in a lot of places.

They'd walk up into the hills and get twigs off of branches.

They bundled them up.

Then they would crawl underneath them and then lift them up on their backs.

And they'd walk them down the hills to sell them in town.

Men walking about as trees.

So just a lot of stuff like that.

And in the culture, a woman could be divorced for letting her hair down in public and things like this.

So these are things that help.

And there are people who've studied this from ancient documents and go over there and the culture's unchanged and stuff like that.

So I'm just saying it's important.

And then there's covenant theology and then abrogation and when the new covenant is ratified.

So I'm just saying that generally speaking, the BHI that I've talked to, they're

good at the Old Testament.

They're good at certain ideas, but they're not good at the culture and they're not good at the theology.

What they do is they submit both of those to their presuppositions.

So if I could show you that Jesus was God in flesh, would you repent of your BHI?

You're not gonna show me that.

You're gonna show me where it feels like it says that and I wanna address something before we move on.

But I didn't say that.

I said, if I could show you, if it was possible and if it was the case, would you repent?

I would act my hat off for good.

Okay.

So if I could show you where he's called God, by God, would you?

If God called him God, would that be okay?

If you called Jesus God, would that be okay?

I said, if God did.

That would be fine.

Okay.

Jesus calls, God calls Jesus God.

God calls, Jesus calls God, God.

So if you go to Hebrews chapter one.

I got another one in Revelations.

But of the son, he, that's the father, speaking says, your throne, oh God, is forever and ever.

God, the father calls Jesus God.

But ye are gods.

So -.

Ye are gods is out of Matthew, out of John.

I'm not talking about Matthew.

I'm talking about Psalms.

Us being called gods in Psalms doesn't make me part of the Trinity.

I mean -.

Okay, notice what happened.

It's three and 12.

And it says -.

Hold on, hold on.

Will I make a pillar in the temple of my God?

And who's talking there?

It's Jesus.

That's Jesus.

So God has a God.

Either way, you've just built where God has a God.

But what we have to negate is that Israelites were called gods in the book of Psalms.

And Jesus, he quotes this himself.

When he asked, is it not written in your law?

Ye are gods.

When he says that, when they say that he was trying to equate himself with the most high, he said, ye are called

gods also.

So what do you have to really bring against me?

Now -.

Hold on, let me address what you just said because there's a lot you're not aware of.

But you're moving away from what we were talking about earlier.

But hold on, hold on.

You brought this up.

I wanna respond to it.

But I wanted to not move on from the Samaritan, remember?

I wanted to talk more about the Samaritan.

You wanna go there.

I wanted to point out how I said inter -tribal warfare was an issue.

That's a very simplistic answer.

And then you gave me a more complex answer which adds some interesting points, right?

But you're not gonna find that in the text and see this is exactly what the problem was.

But what your point didn't do was negate mine, was that there's inter -tribal warfare.

So I wanna know why instead of us just reading these scriptures, you're

trying to flex your intellectual pecs.

It's almost like you're trying to get me to flinch instead of just engaging me.

Like, you know, when I'm talking to somebody who doesn't know as much as I do, I simplify everything and I build them up from

there.

What you're doing is kind of trying to get me to submit.

No.

It's just weird.

No, no, it's not.

Because we were having different conversation moments ago where you weren't comfortable.

But I'm not trying to do that.

You shouldn't, you ought to be careful when you're having a dialogue with somebody you disagree with,.

Is reading their motives and tell them what their motives are.

I mean, you told me my doctrine wasn't Christ -centric.

You told me what wasn't motivating my doctrine instead of asking me where Christ fits into it.

So are you now telling me that I shouldn't do something that you did to me first?

You misrepresented it.

You're not Christ -centered in your theology because you didn't mention him Christologically as the center of the covenants and the

center of the stuff in the Old Testament.

Even when I brought up the Christo -centric stuff, you said, huh, that's interesting.

You hadn't heard that before.

So I'm Christo -centric.

You hadn't been that.

And then you said that, I forget what you just said, but it wasn't a proper representation.

Let's go back to this issue here.

Because when I went to the issue of the Samaritan, you went off to something else.

But your first rule is in hermeneutics is you read what it says right there first.

That's the first rule.

What you did was you took a complex theological perspective from BHI and you impose it on the text.

That's not what you do.

It's a faulty way of exegeting.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do that.

The Mormons do that.

You don't do that.

You always go from the inside out.

You look at what it says and you expand.

And you reversed it.

Let's do that with John 3 .16 then.

Because oftentimes what I hear any Christian, whether he's a pastor or not, what he does is he just starts at.

God so loves the world.

How about we start at verse 14?

How does that work?

We're not done yet.

Hold on, hold on, man.

You're going all over the place, okay?

Because you gotta focus here.

You said you brought up John 10 .34.

It said you are gods.

Well, the thing is, that starts in John 10 .30.

Jesus says, I and the Father are one.

Many good works, then they want to kill him for that.

Many good works of the Father I've shown you.

For which of these are you stoning me?

For a good man, for good work we don't stone you.

But for you being a man, make yourself out to be God.

Now, did the Jews believe that he was God?

Of course not.

Do you believe he was God?

Of course not.

You agree with them.

You agree with the Jews.

You agree with the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus.

They were denying that he was God in flesh.

I could ask some technical questions.

You're saying all the ones that wanted him to rule in the flesh at that time, they didn't believe he was God either?

No, we're not talking about all of them.

Here you go again.

You're going all over the place.

I agree with the Jews, but you didn't ask me which of the Jews I agree with.

You're superimposing your life on me.

The Jews in John 10, 30 through 34.

Okay.

That's what I was talking about.

John 10, 30, I was quoting it to you.

But I gave you a scripture that said, we are God.

So why would I want to kill Jesus?

I'm going to get to it.

I'm going to get to it.

I'm very familiar with it.

It's out of Psalm 82, six.

It's an imprecatory scripture.

Are you trying to put me more in line with Caiaphas?

Hey, look, you're all over the place.

You got to focus.

I'm very focused.

No, you're not.

You're just kind of throwing things to see what sticks.

No, no, that's not it.

Please don't tell me what I'm trying to do.

Okay.

You know what?

Let's start over.

You brought up where Jesus said, me and my father are one.

I'll follow your logic from there.

We can just, we can kind of start over.

That's what led up to the verse that you quoted in the John 10, 34, which is Jesus quoting

Psalm 82, six.

Okay.

So I'm very familiar with this.

I knew right at where it was.

I knew the context, but you didn't read the context.

And Jesus, he says in John 10, 30, I and the father are one.

The Jews picked up stones again to throw at him.

They want to kill him for that.

He said, many good works of the father I've shown you.

For which of these are you stoning me?

And he said, for a good work, we're not stoning you, but you being a man, make yourself out to be God.

And they want to kill him.

They want to kill him because they thought he was claiming to be God.

So there's several questions.

One of them is, did the Jews, right there, those Jews he's talking to, did they believe he was God in flesh?

Of course not.

More importantly.

And you don't agree?

You agree with them?

As much as they like to prop themselves up to.

That's what he was constantly calling them out for.

Did they deny he was God?

They denied he was God in flesh, just like you do.

He then goes and he says, John 10, 34, it's not written in your law.

I said, ye are gods.

He quoted what's called an imprecatory Psalm.

To imprecate is to wish harm on somebody.

And so if you go to Psalm 82, you'll find out that what he talks about is that the,

I'll go right there, okay?

He says, God takes a stand in his own congregation.

He judges amidst the rulers.

How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

He's talking about the unrighteous judges of Israel and that they had the power of life and death.

And you can go down to verse seven.

Nevertheless, you'll die like men.

It's an imprecatory Psalm.

And when Jesus was saying that to the Jews, he was bringing up the imprecation against them, calling them unrighteous

judges.

And they're screwed at that point because if they say, well, the Bible doesn't say you're gods, but it says it does not

say that.

And you're the ones who have this power of life and death.

And yet you're complaining about me saying I'm the son of God.

Because why did they want to kill him?

Because the term son of God in the context meant he was God.

And you can go to John 5, 18 for that.

And plus -.

So you're saying when Jesus says that him and the father are one, means that he is God,

definitively.

It's the Shema.

Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one.

He says, I and the father are one.

They want to kill him.

Why would they want to kill him?

Notice what happens.

They said, they pick up stones again to throw at him.

Well, if you do research, you'll find out that if you go back in John, the very next place where,

previous place where they wanted to kill him was in John 8, 58, before Abraham was, I am.

They pick up stones again to throw at him.

They want to kill him, but he hid himself.

And then the next place of them stoning him is John 10, 30 through 34.

They want to kill him.

Here's a question.

What was it that Jesus had said, show me the verse,

that what he said is where the Jews thought he's claiming to be God?

Because if you can't answer it, it means you don't understand the theology,.

Don't understand what the Jews thought, don't understand what Jesus was teaching.

You won't understand the text.

You just illustrated that there were more than one point.

Yeah, there is.

For one -.

So why would I pick one?

You pick one you want, but there's lots of questions that are related to that.

Why would I pick one point as to which one, if there were a few, I would pick each of those

points.

But what I would look at and say is that from my view, he wasn't wrong in what he said.

They were wrong in the way that they were analyzing the situation and their carnality or their lack of understanding.

So they were denying he was God.

How Jesus's statements makes him God.

And I'm really wanting you to harp on how him saying me and the father are one, because that was the first point you made.

How does that make him God?

Because it's referring back to Deuteronomy 6, 4, hero Israel, the Lord of God is one.

He says, I and the father are one.

And wait a minute.

Would you say that you and God, the father are one?

Yeah, I'd even agree with Paul where he's saying many are one.

So what Jesus is saying - Does that make you a part of the Trinity.

Because the body of Christ is all one?

No.

And so what was it that Jesus was saying and why was he saying it that caused him to think he's claiming to be God?

Because he doesn't do anything that the father doesn't do.

What he sees the father do, he does.

He doesn't do anything unless the father tells him to do so.

John 5, 19, John 5, 20.

Enoch walked with God, I would imagine.

So how is it Jesus can do whatever he sees the father do?

Because he's given the power to do so.

So he has all authority in heaven and earth, right?

Given to him, not take it for himself.

That's another issue.

So he has all authority in heaven and earth.

Does he forgive sins?

Yes.

Well, as a matter of fact, that's a good point to go from.

So when you're done with this point, I wanna take it to somewhere where we can kind of look at it from a different lens.

Same subject matter.

I can go all over, all kinds of directions.

Let's go to Isaiah.

The thing is, he has all authority in heaven and earth and he forgives sins.

And Jesus says, come to me and I will give you rest, back to 11, 28.

And he also says, ask me anything in my name and I will do it, John 14, 14.

So shouldn't you go to Jesus and ask him to forgive you of all of your sins?

Don't, this is crazy.

It's just crazy hearing it from this point.

I don't wanna gaslight you to make you feel like I'm saying that you are.

But just the idea that because Jesus can forgive sins means that he is, God is crazy

because we're given the ability to forgive.

Nope.

Yes, we are.

We can't forgive sins in the capacity that God has but the same way that we have power over life and death, we can

give life by forgiving.

And it's crazy.

It's in the law that we have the ability to forgive our neighbors.

In fact,.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Different context, different context.

The weightier matters like mercy and forgiveness.

We all have that ability to forgive.

Okay, hold on.

No, no, no, no, no.

You don't got an understanding.

From the father, I just don't, I don't see how that makes him the father.

I didn't say that makes him the father.

You don't understand Trinitarianism.

So if -.

I don't understand how one plus one equals one.

Okay, so but you don't understand the Trinity.

Look, when, if someone across the street murders his neighbor, you can't go

over and say, I forgive you for doing that.

It doesn't work like that.

You gotta push evil from out of Israel.

That's why I said, you can't circumvent God, but each of us within our sphere of influence, so let me be clear,

within our sphere of influence, just like Christ has a larger sphere of influence, he has control under that, but he

cannot negate God, which is why he says he cannot negate the father, which means that he is

not God.

He gives that power to God.

Really, you think so?

Yeah, absolutely.

I can go in so many different ways.

If God is Christ Elohim, that makes him his authority.

Does he have the authority to forgive sins?

From the Theos, Theon perspective.

Does, yeah, be careful.

You just did Theos, nominative singular, and Theon, which is accusative singular.

So does Jesus have all the authority in heaven and earth?

Yes.

Does he say, come to me?

Yes.

Are you obeying?

Hold on.

Are you obeying Jesus and coming to him and asking him to forgive you of all of the sins you've ever committed against

God?

Yes, I ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus.

I didn't ask it.

Oh, yeah, I said, asking Jesus to do it.

I ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus.

I didn't say that.

I said, asking Jesus.

Jesus says, come to me, all who are heavy laden.

Ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

That Stephen prayed to Jesus in Acts 7, 35 -36.

You just told me that Jesus said to do what I just said I'd do.

I ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus.

Okay, here's the thing.

I've talked to, I don't know how long you,.

Okay, if you know what I do, but I've been doing this for 43 years.

I've talked to thousands and thousands and thousands of people and you're doing something very, very common.

I'll say something and you don't hear it.

And the reason is, I believe, is because you're so entrenched in your theology, you can't hear it.

But try it again.

Matthew 28, 18, Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth.

Whether it was given or not or what, all authority.

He has it.

He forgives sins.

Luke 5, 20, 7, 48.

He forgives sins.

All right.

Jesus says, ask me anything in my name and I will do it.

Stephen prayed to Jesus in Acts 7, 55 -60.

Okay, I can show you other verses like this about Jesus.

And he says, come to me.

So if, and the father says, listen to Jesus, hear him.

That's Matthew 3, 16.

Here's the thing.

If Jesus, if the father tells us to listen to Jesus, Jesus says, come to me and Jesus

can forgive all sins.

Then shouldn't you go to the one who has all the authority and ask him to forgive you of all of your sins?

Shouldn't you?

Shouldn't you go to Jesus and ask him?

If that's what he said.

It is what he said.

Come to me, all who are heavy laden.

I will give you rest, Matthew 11, 28.

Okay, here's something else.

I'll show you something.

Didn't you also bring up the scripture where he says, in my name?

They go to John 14, 14, but the problem is you're using the King James.

I mean, you, I'm going off of what you quoted.

I was a reader along with you.

So what do you prefer to read?

I would say, read that one.

NASB is better than the King James.

Okay, that's fantastic.

If you read from that verse in that translation, what does that one say?

I can read the Greek to you if you want.

And translate it for you.

But what it says, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Ask him anything in his name?

Uh -huh.

Hey, Christ, in your name?

Ask Jesus anything in his name.

Jesus Christ, in your name?

Ask him, come to my name.

Jesus says, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Can you give me that verse again?

John 14, 14, but the King James doesn't have the word me in it because it's using 5th century

documents instead of 2nd and 3rd.

And so it's -.

Yes, I know.

And so that's why you wanna use an older version.

The King James will lead you astray.

I'm just trying to look at it with you.

John 14 and 14, you said.

I'm just gonna read it along with you, if that's okay.

Yeah.

Just one or several.

I gotta pull this up somewhere.

John 14.

What I can do is I can share the screen and share the Bible app with you and you can see it.

I'll do King James, I'll do different ones.

Not a problem.

You can do that.

I'm trying to look at the script.

Well, I can show you the Greek too.

You can do that.

That would be great.

Okay.

This is taking too long.

All right, so hold on.

Let me share the screen.

Okay, so let's see.

Let's see, present, share screen, window.

I believe that will be it right there.

And then I add.

And can you see the screen?

Almost.

Is it big enough?

The text big enough?

Hey, could you turn?

That's perfect.

Okay, could you, Charlie, could you turn the banner off?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So good.

Okay.

I didn't know the one was on.

That's all right.

So if you'll notice, Ash, I guess I'm gonna call you Ash.

Hope I'm pronouncing it right.

That's perfect.

That's perfect, good.

So it looks at what it says right here in the King James.

If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

And you go down here and it says,

kaihatean auteisete, enmu to enamati.

Okay, so you ask me anything in my name.

That's what it is.

Okay.

And so that's that.

If you go to the NASB and the very same verse, the word me is

there in the Greek.

The King James, it's not.

This is significant.

The reason it's significant, now the King James is a good Bible.

However, it was translated with fifth and sixth century documents.

Since the King James has been translated, they've found many, many older

documents.

And the rule of thumb is the older the document, the better it is.

Now that's not to say we can't trust the Bibles, but it just like in this area, the better manuscripts

have me in there.

I'm just telling you.

And I can show you, if you want, I can show you two other places where the King James translates the Greek

wrong.

So real quick, can you read

verse 15 through

16?

If you love me, I'll keep my commandments.

I will ask the Father, he will give another helper.

That he may be with you forever.

It seems like we're looking at a scenario where there's intercession or mediation

going on.

It just doesn't tell me that he has authority where he can just decide to do whatever he wants to do

still.

So like, I see what you read.

It says, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

But we clearly see that there's things that God still has to do, and Jesus has to pray for him in order to do

so.

So it's still not as cohesive as you're making it seem to be.

Who's doing the forgiving when you ask?

Jesus is doing the forgiving, of course.

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

Now, if I sin against you, if I call you names and I get mad at you, I hang up and the whole

bit, and then let's just say on Monday, we talk again.

I say, dude, look, man, I'm sorry.

I was out of line.

I, you know, blah, blah, blah.

I have to go to you and ask you for forgiveness because I offended you.

It was wrong.

I don't get in charge.

Huh?

And then he has to turn and advocate though.

So what is, who does he advocate to?

No, no, no, I'm trying to say, look,.

The one who is sinned against is the one we go to.

How is it that Jesus can forgive sins?

So again, he, by, by advocating.

He's not the one sinned against.

How is he forgiving?

He's doing the act of forgiving.

Okay.

Watch this.

It says, my little children, these things right I unto you that ye sin not.

And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father.

And it says that that individual is Jesus Christ.

So that's what I'm saying is that that forgiveness, it comes through him advocating on our behalf, not

as him just saying your sins are gone.

He's given the power to do so.

Good.

He's given the power to do so, to be our advocate, to be the one who forgives us.

So shouldn't you go to him?

Like the father said, listen to him.

Jesus says, come to me.

Why aren't you doing that?

I don't get why you're saying I don't.

In this particular sense, I do.

I ask for forgiveness when I need forgiveness in the name of Jesus.

I realize when I pray that he is my advocate, that he is my savior, that he died for

my sins.

I don't get the difference there.

Okay, I'll show you something here in text, okay?

All right.

So on 116 - You said there was a place I wanted to go.

I just want you to let me know when we can do that.

When what?

I said there was a place that I wanted to go.

I just want you to let me know when we can do that.

Okay, good.

Let me show you something right here, okay?

Right here.

And I called upon the name of the Lord.

Oh Lord, I beseech you, save my life.

You see this?

I'm gonna show you something, okay?

The word Lord here is Yahweh, okay?

That's the name of God, right?

See the phrase, call upon the name of, it's actually Yahweh, okay?

I wish the Hebrew, the Bibles would put it in Yahweh, Yod -Heh -Bod -Heh.

I wish they would, but at any rate.

Then I called upon the name of Yahweh.

Oh Yahweh, I beseech you, save my life.

So the phrase, to call upon the name of Yahweh is addressed only to God Almighty.

And it has to do with prayer and worship and adoration, right?

You sure?

I'm following you, as well.

I'm gonna trap you.

I'm gonna tell you up ahead, I'm gonna try and trap you on something, okay?

It's my attempt.

It's not malicious, all right?

Now, when we go to the Septuagint, the Septuagint has

this phrase.

If you look on the screen, I can show it to you.

Okay?

The Septuagint, oh, it's numbered wrong.

Some Septuagints are like that.

Yeah, it doesn't have it in there.

This is a different rendering of that.

So look, here's the thing.

Do you know what the Septuagint is?

Yeah, I do.

Okay, when they translated the phrase, call upon the name of Yahweh, they translated it into the Greek, they called upon the name of

the Lord, Ha -Kourios.

That's what they did.

And so that phrase, call upon the name of the Lord, not the word called, not the word name, but the

phrase, call upon the name of Yahweh, is equivalent in the Greek, call upon the name of the Lord.

That phrase is only of God Almighty, period.

Only of God Almighty, right?

That's right.

And watch this.

To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling with all who in

every place, call on the name of the Lord Jesus.

And you can see this phrase, to call on the name of the

Lord Jesus.

Why would Paul the Apostle use a phrase, a Greek phrase for the Septuagint,

that is only in reference to God Almighty?

Why would you apply it to Jesus?

He's talking about the word Lord in the Greek.

Call the phrase, call upon the name of the Lord.

The phrase is a reference to prayer, worship, adoration, to God Almighty.

The Jews, call upon the name of Yahweh.

The Jews translated into the Greek, call upon the name of the Lord.

That's what this phrase is.

Call upon the name of the Lord.

See?

What I'm saying is in that text that you just went to, not the one in the Septuagint, the one where you're saying they're

calling Jesus.

Are you saying that they're calling him Curios?

Is that what the hangup is?

The phrase?

No, they.

No, Paul the Apostle is saying to the church that calls on the name of the Lord

Jesus.

Okay.

And I was trying to say, what's your point?

What's the discrepancy that I'm supposed to be dealing with?

Why is Paul the Apostle using that phrase right there, which I've got it highlighted?

That phrase, call on the name of the Lord, is a phrase used only of God Almighty.

Why is it in reference to Jesus?

Okay.

So to the church of God, which is at current, to those who have been

sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling with

all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

their Lord and ours.

Why not?

He's the King.

He's our Savior.

The phrase, call upon the name of the Lord is of God Almighty.

Is it?

Yes.

It just says Curios.

I don't, I don't, you're, you're saying because in the Septuagint, it says Curios in this verse that it

means the name of God Almighty.

I don't get that.

Why isn't it Yahweh?

What's the Greek equivalent?

This is Hebrew right here on the left.

That's the Hebrew.

Can I call on the name of the Lord?

Okay.

In the Hebrew, it's call on the name of Yahweh.

That's what it is in Hebrew.

The Jews, when they translated the Old Testament, this phrase occurs here in other places.

They translated it into the Greek, call upon the name of the Greek, the Lord, ha.

Curios.

This says Curios both times is what you're saying.

Yeah, Curios is the word for Lord in Greek.

It says Curios, oh Curios, I beseech you.

Gracious is Curios.

No, no, no, no, no.

So what does it say on those other instances?

Read all the way to five.

Look what it says.

Yeah.

Then I called on the name of the Lord.

Oh Lord, I beseech you, save my life.

That's what it is.

Read it in the Greek all the way to five.

How many times does Curios come up?

It just comes up twice.

It just comes up twice.

What about in five?

I'm trying to see.

Oh, I'm sorry, five also.

Gracious is the Lord.

Yeah, I can't analyze it the way that you are.

That's all right.

So the word, it's Yahweh that occurs.

But look, the phrase, then I called on the name of Yahweh.

And then this is how he did it.

Oh Yahweh, I beseech you, save my life.

So what's the word for Lord in verse five?

It's Yahweh.

Okay.

I don't think you have much of a point there.

I think that might be more political than anything else, but I can research

that on my own.

I can admit you showed me something very interesting to look into, but it still doesn't change my view.

Like it still looks like you're hoping for Christ to advocate on your behalf in each of the

instances that you pulled up.

So what I'll do is I'll write this down to look at it, and then we can revisit it again when we

revisit the other scriptures that you had no adequate answer for that I asked you about.

But I wanna also -.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh.

No adequate answer.

So now I can say to you, you had no adequate answer for what I just brought up to you.

And that's the easy stuff.

That's perfectly fine.

You gotta be nice now, come on now.

I mean, I'm saying I want more.

So if you're wanting for more out of something, then what you are getting out of it is inadequate.

So there would be no need for another discussion.

Not as light.

But in that same timeframe, we can revisit these things again.

But I wanna look at Isaiah the sixth chapter.

If we could - We'll go there, then I'm gonna get going because I gotta attend to my wife and stuff.

Okay, that sounds good.

Thank you for all that extra time.

So this has been better than any other dialogue I've had.

Well, good.

Isaiah six.

What?

We can start at verse one.

Let me, hold on.

Let me get over to my notes.

I wanna put this in here.

Okay.

All right.

I could send you all my notes.

Not all, but the notes on the scriptures and say, here's what BHI have brought up.

Why?

And you can say, this is why.

Proves this and proves that.

Okay, so Isaiah six, one and two?

Let's start at verse one.

Okay.

All right.

And go ahead.

And what's it about?

What's the, I wanna know the point too.

So it's a vision that Isaiah has happened.

Okay.

And it's an important vision to me because well, you'll see why.

Is it okay if I read it?

I can see it.

Sure.

It says, in the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord.

And I'm sure you and I would both agree that's talking about Yahuwah.

Sitting on the throne, lofty and exalted.

So that's the most high.

That's the creator of heaven and earth sitting on his throne with the train of his robe filling the temple.

Seraphim stood above him, each having six wings.

With two, he covered his face and with two, he covered his feet.

And with two, he flew.

And one called out to another and said, holy, holy, holy is

Yahuwah of hosts.

The whole earth is full of his glory.

And the foundations of the threshold trembled at the voice of him who called out

while the temple was filled with smoke.

I'm gonna get to the point here.

If you could scroll down just a little bit, we're gonna read all the way up until verse

seven.

There you go.

It says, woe is me for I am ruined because I am a man of unclean

lips.

And I live among a people of unclean lips.

For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

So again, he's isolating the most high.

Now in verse six, it says, then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal

in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs.

And he touched my mouth with it and said, behold, this has touched your lips and your

iniquity is taken away and your sins forgiven.

Who does this seraphim signify in your opinion?

I don't know.

Okay, any other serpentine creatures likened under Christ

in the Torah that you can think of?

Well, you know, the devil obviously, but yeah.

What about the serpent in the wilderness?

Cause we talked about John 3, 16 and how the context starts at 14

more so.

I'd say start a little higher would be even better.

But John 3 and 14 talks about the serpent that was raised up in the wilderness on

a staff by Moses and the Israelites and saved them,

right?

So I'm saying that this is something that's pretty common when referring to Christ.

There's also a prophecy that talks about how a servant was going to come from the

loins of David essentially.

And I believe Isaiah 14 chapter, but I don't want to digress.

It says that he touched my mouth with it and said, behold, this has touched your lips and your iniquity is

taken away and your sins is forgiven.

Christ has given the authority to forgive sins, right?

Or was there someone who had that authority before him?

I wouldn't say that he had the authority there.

Doesn't say he had the authority.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that we grabbed that because when you look at the book of,

I believe Numbers, there's a foreshadowing of Christ being lifted up as a serpent

in the wilderness and saving the Israelites.

Maybe that's something that we can revisit.

In our future dialogue.

Sure.

But then you have to be able to analyze why would he take a hot coal?

What's the coal represent?

Where's the furnace?

Tongs are put on the lips and that's what forgave him.

No, something else is going there.

Going there.

I don't think it's about the coal.

I think it signifies something different.

But what I'm looking at is the real conduit there is the serpent.

Well, the serpent, the seraphim is a serpent.

No, you don't make that mistake.

Don't make that mistake.

Okay.

A seraphim is a type of angel.

There's cherubim, seraphim, archangels, powers, principalities, a supernatural being,

but don't just say it's a serpent.

Okay, it's a different word.

So that would be not good.

So do you admit though that he saw Yahweh?

One, I wanna be very clear.

It is a serpent, whether it's of an angelic sort or not, the word seraph, it's talking

about a fiery serpent, a poisonous, fiery serpent.

And so that is the point that I'm coming from.

And I don't want that to be lost on anybody who might listen to this in the future.

Yeah, you gotta be careful what's called illegitimate totality transfer.

What that means is a single word can have multiple meanings in different contexts.

A single person can learn the entire vocabulary of Hebrew as it was spoken back then, but

not so with Greek.

It's too vast of a language, unless you're,.

It is savant, you know.

Like if you look at a im, that could just mean, that's gonna mean plural.

But if you look at a iim, that's gonna be more so of a duality, I understand that.

And when I look at it.

I'm just saying that seraphim has been used as a fiery serpent three times, fiery

twice, seraphim twice, serpent, fiery serpent, poisonous serpent, majestic beings with six wings,

human hands or voices.

So it has different meanings.

So you gotta be careful not to take a meaning over one place and transfer it to here.

Because here they have wings.

Serpents don't have wings.

So look, here's the thing I wanna ask you.

You said, did Isaiah actually see Yahweh?

This is a vision.

And it says that he sees the Lord in this vision.

Nobody's actually gonna see the Most High face to face.

Are you sure?

Except Moses.

Moses, Numbers 12, six through eight, he beholds a form of Yahweh.

So did Moses actually see Yahweh?

He saw his back physically.

That's Exodus 30, 20, 33, 20.

So you can't see my face, but no one can see me and live.

Exodus 33, 11, and then 33, 20, saw the backside.

But how about this?

Let me show you something.

Okay, I'm just curious.

Before you move on, what I was trying to pose with that text was, what I want you to be able to explain

to me when we talk again, if at all possible, is why is that serpent juxtaposed from the Most High?

And that is with my understanding that that serpent represents Christ.

Why are they not one and the same?

Are you, you would have to kind of tell me all of those seraphims are different aspects of the Most

High.

Okay, so you're saying the seraphim slash serpent

represented who?

Jesus.

Okay.

Well, then what does the coal represent?

Picked up with Tom.

I actually don't have a thesis on what that coal is very specifically.

So, you know, I'm welcoming your answer.

Why touch his lips when I touch his heart where his sin is?

Men are defiled by what they speak.

I don't know.

I don't want to impose my ideas.

I'd rather pull it from the text.

So again, that'd be cool.

But then how do they bundle the heart, the mouth speaks?

Matthew 12, 34.

So yeah, it's tough to do that because there's so much symbolism there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, so I got my notes there.

He said the seraphim serpent represents Jesus.

Okay.

So look at this verse here.

Oh, my wife, she hasn't called me yet.

God spoke further than Moses said to him, I am Yahweh and I appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty.

Do you believe that God appeared as God Almighty?

I do not, yeah.

I'm sorry?

I do not.

No, I do not, Yahweh.

By the way, I have hearing aids, but I had to turn them in today.

They had to be fixed.

So I have 80 decibel ringing in both ears.

I really do, unfortunately.

And my days in the nightclubs blew out.

It's really loud.

I don't have my hearing aids in for a week.

Well, I'm gonna have to re -prepare.

You got to do a lesson about not going to the club and standing next to the speaker.

You got that right.

I don't have my hearing aids in for a week.

I was a white boy with rhythm, man.

I used to hit the clubs all the time.

I love it, but it blew my ears out.

I was stupid.

I had to meet myself and beat myself up from that back in the day, stop.

At any rate, so notice what it says.

God spoke further than Moses said to him, I am Yahweh.

That's God talking, identifying himself by his name.

I appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty.

So did he appear as God Almighty?

You mean, are you talking about the name that they knew him by when you asked me that?

Are you saying how he presented himself?

Are you saying, did he actually present himself to them?

Because I would say no.

Look what it says.

God spoke further than Moses and said to him, I'm Yahweh.

So the text says it's God who's talking, not an angel, not a man, not a vision, not a

dream, God, and said, I'm Yahweh.

So it's God who identifies himself as Yahweh.

This is it, okay.

And you're saying that he presented himself, but not by

Yahweh, but as God Almighty.

No, hold on.

And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name,

Yahweh, I did not make myself known to them.

So they didn't know his name.

It was God Almighty they were seeing, but they didn't know his name yet, that's all.

So do you agree that they saw him present himself,.

And that would indicate them seeing him.

Is that the point you're making?

That's right, that's what God says.

Okay, I don't read it that way, because when I look at how Moses was presented with the word, he met,

I am that I am.

And then he juxtaposed himself and then said that, tell them that Yahweh sent you.

And when you read it, it says an angel appeared, a messenger.

So I believe that the Most High speaks to people through messengers most of the time.

Okay.

So in this particular instance here, it would have been the same thing.

So when it says God was speaking, it really wasn't God speaking?

Right, it's like T -Mobile speaking to you.

You're not talking to T -Mobile, you're speaking to representatives of T -Mobile, because it's an overarching entity, but it has

representatives.

So the Most High, if we can't comprehend him and look upon him, he's gonna have emissaries come on his behalf.

That's the way I read it.

Okay, so when it says God spoke further to Moses, it really wasn't God speaking.

And when he says, I am Yahweh, it really wasn't Yahweh.

Let's be clear because this is the way I respect God, right?

If God sends an angel and the angel says, thus sayeth the Lord, that's just as good as the Lord speaking to me.

That's how I respect it.

So I believe God is speaking and they're not gonna speak anything other than what he said.

But do I believe that I'm looking at the Most High?

No, absolutely not.

Well, the text says God spoke further to Moses.

I'm going to conclude that it was God who spoke to Moses because it says God spoke to Moses.

So I think it's God who spoke to Moses.

Is that unreasonable?

I would say it's unreasonable for me.

Why?

Because when God said, I'm gonna make you gods to the Egyptians, it didn't mean I was gonna make you God the Most

High to the Egyptians.

When the people who were running to and fro, when the Israelites were making their way through the wilderness, and they said, these are the

gods that destroyed the Egyptians.

I don't take that as this is Yahweh who destroyed the Egyptians, although we would represent him

in some capacity.

So no, it's not very reasonable to me.

That's a different context.

And you got to make sure you don't look at some other contexts, interpret this by something else.

Because we could reverse it.

I mean, any context matters, but what I'm looking at is that there's a word here being used.

Yahweh.

And there's words used God.

And depending on who you talk to, people think when you see God, you're talking about one very particular entity.

So I'm saying that I don't really make the mistake of doing that.

I see scriptures that indicate that an angel is speaking.

So I'm gonna believe that the angel is speaking when it says, thus sayeth the Lord.

If we're looking at Moses, for example.

When Abraham was 99 years old,.

Yahweh appeared to Abraham and said, I am God Almighty, walk before me.

So it says that God Almighty appeared.

And this says, God spoke for Moses, said, I'm Yahweh.

I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty.

That's not an angel because an angel wouldn't say, I'm Yahweh.

That would not be true.

You see?

Hold on real quick.

I'm trying to pull my tools up.

And in like manner, I'm having some technical difficulties.

So just one second.

So you and I both agree that

Hebrew words can be used in different forms until we get to scriptures that you feel very

strongly about.

Like the Hebrew word, the rule of Ra 'ah, where when you appear it can be, to

appear can be figuratively as well.

So like, why do you have the bias here?

Like what other sources do you have that can further point me to where

this is not figurative?

And that it's not - I'll read the context.

Okay.

Well, what about the context?

Look at this, right there.

Now, when Abraham was 99 years old, Yahweh appeared to Abraham and said to him, I'm God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless.

I will establish my covenant between me and you and I'll multiply you exceedingly.

Abraham fell on his face and God talked with him, saying, as for me,

behold, my covenant is with you and you'll be the father of multiple nations, et cetera.

He says, I'll establish my covenant, et cetera.

God said further to him, now, as for you, you shall keep my commandments, my covenant,

right?

Then the thing, the circumcision issue.

God said to Abraham, as for Sarah, your wife, so God's just talking the whole time and check this out, we go

down to 18 .1.

Now that Yahweh appeared to him by the Oaks of Mamre.

And incidentally, this is brag, I was there a few months ago, right there where this happened.

While he was setting the tent door the day, lift up his eyes and behold, three men were standing opposite him.

Now this says, Yahweh appeared and three are there, interesting.

What's really, really, really interesting.

So that would be figurative, right?

Is it?

Because Yahweh means what?

He be, or he exists.

No, I am.

No, Ahayah means I am.

Yahweh means he exists or the existing one.

I'll go with that.

I'll go with that, okay?

Like, if we even look at,.

If we call it in Greek, the being one, existing one.

So there you go, that's fine.

That's his name.

He said, that's his name in Exodus 3 .15, okay?

So God spoke to him.

God appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In fact, check this out.

Look at this, in Exodus 24, nine.

Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and 70, the elders of Israel.

And they went up and they saw the God of Israel.

They saw the God of Israel.

And under his feet, there appeared to be a pavement of sapphires, clear as the sky itself.

Yet he did not stretch out his hand against the sons of the nobles of Israel.

They beheld God, they ate and they drank or they saw God, they ate and they drank.

Check this out really fast.

I have a reason for showing you this.

This is Acts 7, I believe it's verse two.

And Stephen says, here, brethren and fathers, the God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.

Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says he appeared.

Right there in Acts 7, verse two.

What's the Hebrew word?

I mean, sorry, what Hebrew word do you think that's adjacent to?

This is Greek.

I'm saying what Hebrew word do you think that is adjacent to?

Like some -.

To a Hebrew word.

Okay.

You know how some things can be lost in translation in Greek versus Hebrew?

Some cases, it's not necessarily like that.

Some cases there is an adequate, like you have the different variations of the word Jerusalem.

So is there any source on what that Hebrew word is?

I mean, what Greek word is adjacent in Hebrew?

Optomani.

Optomani.

Optomani. Is the Greek word.

Yes, to see, perceive with the eyes, to look at.

Right there, okay.

And this is what -.

Is there no source on what Hebrew word that Greek word is

adjacent to?

I was just asking that -.

It's not.

Because this isn't a quote from the Hebrew.

This is here.

This is Thomas.

Excuse me, Stephen, simply speaking.

And he said, the God of glory appeared to our father Abraham.

One of the nice things about this program I have is it's 3 ,700.

That's the Greek word.

I can go over here.

This is -.

And I can do this.

Real quick, before you go too much further.

The issue that I take is this.

There was an oral tradition in Israel just as much as there was paper going around.

You got the Sadducees who more so dealt with the paper.

You got the Pharisees who more so dealt with what was going on with the oral tradition.

And they were astute in what was going to be documented as well.

But with oral tradition, you're going to get different language that's being used, passed down through generation

to generations.

So you're looking at things like semantic change.

You're looking at things like words becoming lost in translation.

So why here are we seeing God appear to our father Abraham one way,

where in the Hebrew it says it could be figuratively.

I asked you about that one text.

What within the text tells you that the Lord appearing is not figuratively.

You proceeded to tell me what the Lord said, but you didn't give me any other indicator

linguistically.

You didn't give me any other type of background of that text.

It's just my word against yours on how that's read in that instance.

Does that make sense, what I'm asking you?

Yeah, yeah, it does.

But -.

Okay, because like, I'm not being disrespectful when I say this.

No, not at all.

What I never wanted to be is I'm older, so I'm right.

I'm younger, so I'm right.

I'm white and I'm right.

I'm black and I'm right.

So what is going to divide that for me is facts.

And the facts is we both read the same text and you and I are both saying it looks different based off of other background

issues.

So before -.

But what I do is read it.

Okay.

God spoke to Moses.

So I believe it was God who spoke to Moses because the text said, God spoke to Moses.

Or angels are called God.

But we're not looking at an angel here because he says, I am Yahweh.

Is an angel gonna say, I'm Yahweh?

If an angel speaks on behalf of the Lord, again, we're circling back to that issue and that's fine with me.

But I feel like we're missing each other on that.

If an angel comes to somebody and has nothing to say but what the Lord said, why are they not just gonna say what

the Lord said?

This is what the Lord has to say.

An angel could appear and say, thus says the Lord, and then quote what the Lord says.

That's not happening here.

Okay.

I've seen prophets do that, but I've seen plenty of instances where it says there's an angel and it says, thus, this is what the

Lord is saying.

If we look at -.

You go, exactly.

And the angel will say, this is what he has said.

It thus says the Lord, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's not happening here.

God spoke to Moses and said, I am Yahweh.

That's God.

That's not an angel speaking for God.

So when the angel appeared to Moses, what was the angel there for?

Okay, that's different.

Well, let's talk about it then.

No, no, no, no, no.

Right here in Exodus six, Exodus three is different because angel could

simply mean messenger.

It doesn't necessarily mean created being because in the Trinity, it could be the pre -incarnate

Christ who's doing the work of being the mediator and the intercessor back then, just as he was

in the garden.

And I can show you that.

I can show you all kinds of stuff like that.

But let me show you why I'm showing this to you.

Why I'm doing this.

Because your theology is insufficient.

I'm trying to show you something.

This is what Jesus says in John 6, 46.

Not that anyone has seen the father, except the one who's from God, he has seen the father.

Talk about himself, right?

Okay.

Who were they seeing in the Old Testament who claims to be God, Yahweh,

who's God almighty, but not God the father?

I'm sorry, I disassociated.

What was that Jesus said?

Jesus said, not that anyone has seen the father, except the one, talking about

himself, he has seen the father.

All right, good.

So Jesus seen the father.

So no one else has.

In the Old Testament, God says, he speaks, not an angel, it's God.

Says he appears.

In fact, he says, as you brought up, God appeared to Moses, and that's in number 12, six through eight.

Hear now my words, if there's a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a visionary dream, and not so with my servant Moses.

He is faithful in all my household.

With him I speak openly and not in dark sayings.

And he beholds the form of Yahweh.

That's what God said.

That's not an angel.

In Exodus 24, nine through 11, 74 people see the God of Israel.

In Genesis 17, one, and Genesis 18, one.

God appears, this is what it says.

But Jesus says, no one's ever seen the father.

And yet God himself says, I am Yahweh.

I appear to him as that God almighty.

I appear to them.

This is what God is saying.

So here's the question.

Who is God almighty in the Old Testament who's not God the father?

God almighty and the father are the same person.

But Jesus says, no one's ever seen the father.

They were seeing God almighty, but they weren't seeing God the father.

So who were they seeing?

Again, I believe that he's figuratively appearing.

And I'm gonna use this same instance again.

I know you're saying it's a separate context, but it's a good thing to look at and examine how

that can work.

And again, it's Exodus three and two.

I know you're saying it's a different situation, but it works very perfectly.

It says the angel of the Lord, the messenger of Yahweh, right?

So being very specific here, when we see the word angel, we're looking at Malak angel.

We're talking about the same thing across the board, I'm sure.

It says the messenger of the Lord appeared unto him in the flame of fire out of the midst of a

bush.

And he looked, behold, the bush burned with fire, which was not consumed.

And Moses said, I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see God called out unto him in the midst of

the bush.

That's why I asked what the angel was there to do.

Was the angel just there?

Or was the angel representing the Lord and speaking on his behalf?

I hope.

Let's look at it.

The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire in the midst of the bush, right?

And then it says, when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look.

To look at what?

To look at the burning bush where the angel of the Lord is, right?

And the Lord saw and God.

Hold on.

When he saw that Moses is looking at the place where the angel is, he's seeing the fire.

Then God called to him.

And spoke out of the midst of the bush.

Yes.

Is God the angel?

Angels, that's what I'm saying.

Angels are called God.

Is God the angel?

That's not my question.

Elohim is a plural word.

So the application.

Yeah, trinity.

You got L.

You're not answering the question.

L, that's singular, but it's not talking about L.

It's just Elohim.

Is God an angel?

No.

Okay.

But an angel can be called God.

The angel of Yahweh, is that Yahweh himself?

No, absolutely not.

Then when it says, when Yahweh, verse four, saw that he turned aside to look, God called

him.

Right.

So that's two different parties right here.

The angel of the Lord, according to you, the angel of the Lord and God.

Two different parties are involved here.

And now we have in verse four, God spoke.

I disagree that the angel and God are juxtaposed.

I believe -.

They are, right there, you said so.

No, no, no, no.

I don't think that they're juxtaposed.

I believe that the Lord is juxtaposed.

It says a messenger of the Lord.

Like for example, the Lord's not gonna send an angel to send a message that he's just going to come and

speak right along.

Like the angel's gonna stand there and God's gonna do all the speaking.

The angel's there to give what message at that point.

So the angel is there to represent the Lord.

And that angel is being called God because he is a part of that Elohim.

So the angel -.

That's how I look at the text.

I don't see -.

The angel, but you see it.

The angel activates the burning of the bush.

Okay.

The angel does that.

We'll say the angel's a created thing.

We'll just go with that for now.

So God creates the burning of the bush.

No, it doesn't say that.

The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of the bush.

It doesn't say who did it.

So God's called that in the midst of the angel?

Moses was pastor in the flock of Jethro, his father -in -law, the priest of Midian.

He led the flock of the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.

The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire.

It doesn't say who started the fire.

It just says the bush is on fire.

You can't go beyond what's written here.

It just says the bush is on fire.

And it says the angel of the Lord.

You agree.

Well, we'll go for this for now.

The angel of the Lord is not the same thing as God because it's an angel.

No, as the Lord, I'm saying it's the Lord.

It's an angel of the Lord.