Dialogue with Elder Rawchaa Shayar on Hebrew Israelism

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, and today on the program we have a very special opportunity of engaging in a dialogue. I'm not sure how long it's going to last, but there are a number of questions that have been agreed upon beforehand.

Nothing overly formal in the sense of normal debates where you have a thesis topic and cross-examination and moderation and things like that. Hopefully, we'll be able to get through these questions fairly clearly.

Obviously, one of the problems we're facing is we are both doing The Dividing Line and co-airing another program at the same time, which means that we are feeding YouTube and we're doing Skype and all that kind of fun stuff.

So prayers appreciated for the technical end of things, because obviously sometimes things go wrong, and we've all heard that happen in the past. So the subject today is the issue of the Hebrew Israelite movement and specifically, I guess we can do this, and I haven't been able to talk to anybody quite yet, and I'm not sure when their program is starting or if they're just listening to me right now or exactly how that's working.

But let me just play, since it's less than a minute long, the specific clip. There is a dialogue between Vokab Malone and certain representatives of this movement. And again, I recognize there are different groups within this movement, and we'll let them define their own position for them.

But there is a dialogue that I listened to on Saturday, Friday, actually, of last week as I was going down to Tucson. And this particular little clip contains the primary element of what I wanted to ask some questions about, dialogue about.

This was said to Vokab Malone at a certain point during the conversation. So let's take a listen to it, and then we can get to the questions and get our dialogue started. So here's what I heard from the dialogue with Vokab Malone.

The Claim That the Deity of Christ Was Not Taught in the Gospels

Well, I'm glad you're on here with me, because you've probably seen some of our teachings. And let me deal with this going backwards, first starting with the deity. We understand that the deity of Christ was never discussed in the Gospels.

A matter of fact, the word deity only came up in the 4th century during the time of Constantine with the Council of Nicaea argument of Christ's divinity. So when you deal with it from a theologian standpoint, and I'm sure you are a theologian studying, you realize that the word deity in itself embodies idolatry of the Gentiles.

There's nowhere in Scripture that says that we are.

To acknowledge Christ as a deity. So there was the material, and it has two parts. The use of the term deity in regards to Jesus in the New Testament itself, and then the claim that this was a development that basically came into existence at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD under Constantine.

And so, everybody knowing me knows that those are issues that I deal with very, very regularly, teaching church history and debating with Muslims and others around the world. And so I wanted to get some clarification and some dialogue on that.

And then there's been some questions asked of me that I want to be able to respond to as well. So with that, who am I speaking with? And let's make sure that we have communication with one another.

You're speaking with Elder Ricard Yarpe of the Gathering of the Christ Church.

Okay, hi, Elder. Were we just listening to you? Yes, you were. Okay, good. All right. I just want to make sure we had the right folks talking to each other, and thank you very, very much for joining me, and I guess I'm joining you all at the same time, so I appreciate it.

How long ago did the conversation with vocab take place? I would say about three weeks ago. About three weeks ago? Okay, all right. It seems to be getting around, and I saw it, so I grabbed it and listened to it.

And so you guys have got some questions for me, and I've got those two questions for you. So where would you like to begin? You just want to sort of go through the PDF you sent me and just do it in that order?

Okay, well, I want to handle that. We can do it in the order I sent, but first of all, I would like to give all praises to the Almighty, Ahia, in the name of Yeshua, which is the true name of what this world calls Jesus Christ.

Okay, I want to give all praises to the Messiah and His Father, Ahia, Ahia basham Yeshua. We have to give praises to our Creator first. And yes, I'll start with your line of questions. Would you like me to ask you certain.

Questions? Well, the first question in the PDF says, has to do with what we just played there, and that is the assertion, the term deity is never used, of Jesus. You specifically said in the Gospels, and then it first came about at the Council of Nicaea.

There's really two questions there, and that is the New Testament's use of that term in regards to Jesus and then later developments. So let's just start with the claim that when you said it's never used of Jesus in the Gospels, I would assume that you're familiar that it is used of Jesus, for example, in Colossians 2 .9.

So were you making a distinction between Paul's authority and the Gospels, or what did.

You mean by that? Good question. So let me expound on that excerpt that was taken during my discussion with Mr. Malone. I'm expounding on that because I was really magnifying within that conversation of Rich.

That's your name, right, Richard? No, my name is James. James, excuse me, James. He's the tech guy, I'm sorry. Well, James, I was expounding on what led to modern day Christianity. Now, we know deities have been worshipped through ancient Babylon, all the way, you know, from ancient Babylon, Egypt, the Babylonian captivity that people fell into during a half a century before Christ, and up until the Romans.

The Romans were worshipping deities. So when I say deity, and I say that His divinity, quote-unquote, wasn't discussed as a deity until Constantine, is because I've read the Bible and there's no place in the Bible that states is a deity, or the word deity itself.

And I stand on that. Okay, so what do you believe about.

Colossians 2 .9, which says, "...for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form," referring.

Specifically to Jesus. Okay, let me explain that to you. Okay. Because the Bible says, "...through thy.

Precepts thy get understanding.". And see, I knew you was going there, but I'm going to show you,.

And I'm glad you went there because we can clear that up for you first. Okay? Okay. Here it comes.

I got the precepts right in front of me because I knew you was going there. "...for him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.". See, what you would need to do, sir, is get yourself a King James Version Bible and not a New International Version.

It's not a New International Version. Okay, well, in the King James Version Bible, Colossians 2 .9 reads, "...for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.". Okay, the word deity isn't there.

Well, but obviously you realize that Paul wasn't writing in English, right? Of course I know he wasn't writing in English.

So, the term that he used is theatetos. Theatetos means, "...that which makes God, God.". It's the.

Very definition of the term deity. Okay, well, let me answer the question then. Let me get Godhead out of the Greek in front of you so that you don't, you know, instill something that's not true. Okay, that's true that the word is theatetos in the Greek, but Christ was not a Greek.

The New Testament was translated into the Greek. From what? So you have to realize that when the theopolists were operating at that time, Luke and others, the Hebrews and a lot of our people who are Israelites, some of them were converted as Hellenists.

So when it came time during the time of Christ James, what happened was you had some records in the Hebrew, some in the Greek. Like I have a Hebrew Matthews. So when King James was commissioned to translate the modern translation we have today called the King James Version, there wasn't enough of the Hebrew New Testament for them to make it a whole Hebrew or Hebraic book of the New Covenant.

So what they did was, since they had more of the Greek, they translated out of the Greek. Now, I'm saying this because we can't draw from Greek terms knowing that Christ was a Hebrew. Okay, that's the Greek way of identifying a power or God.

So I think that's the confusion here.

Well, let me just ask you a question. Paul's writing to the Church of Colossae, they don't read Hebrew in Colossae, they read Greek. And all scholars I know recognize that the Book of Colossians was written in Greek.

So the original says theatetos, which means deity. And any alleged Hebrew retranslation of that is complete speculation. The original is theatetos.

Okay. Well, let me answer to you this, James. Christ was a Hebrew. Okay, in Hebrews 7 and 14, it reads, it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, okay? In the Book of Hebrews, Christ was a Hebrew.

Now, going back to this, when you look at the Strong's Concordance, theatetos, that particular word does stem from a word that the Greeks were used to using for divinity, being that they worshiped pagan deities.

So that term was placed on Christ. The Hebrews, the Israelites, didn't call Christ or argue this divinity. Okay, so again, there's no place in Scripture, again, where the doctrine says that we must worship or deal with Christ as a deity.

Let me make this clear. The word is godhead, which embodies Father, Son, Holy Spirit, which was from the beginning. Okay, let me ask you a question here.

The reality is that the King James Version of the Bible, the Authorized 1611 Version, twice uses the term godhead, once in Romans 120 and once in Colossians 2 .9, rendering two different Greek words. One's theates, the other's theates.

And the two words do not mean the same thing, so that the King James rendering is not really accurate into the original language itself. But it sounds like that's sort of irrelevant because your argument is making the King James the final authority, even though the King James was translated by Puritans from the Church of England between 1604 and 1611.

Why do they become the final authority rather than the ancient language, the only ancient language in which the New Testament was written, which is Koine Greek? Why do we jump 1 ,500 years.

Into the future and make that the standard? Even though that wasn't a point discussed, I'll still answer it, but I want to bring it back on point here. The whole point is this. We must have a foundation in which we believe and understand the gospel of Christ and the rise of the children of Israel according to the promise.

We can't be all over the place. Our foundation is the King James Version Bible because it closely correlates to the Hebrew and the Greek, and King James, being an Israelite himself, commissioned this particular record.

Now, I'm not here to go into every other record in the earth concerning a passage, because there's an overall doctrine that the earth will soon receive and understand.

You understand? So, wait a minute, King James is a Hebrew?

Absolutely. King James tells you that he had to rush to make sure this translation happened, knowing that the Romans were looking to kill him. So, when you read in the preface, he's saying he's doing this under the threat of the Roman Empire, who's looking to destroy Zion.

In order for him to say Zion, he must have been Israel to Zion. Okay? And I have further proof on that, but let's not get too far off of our topic, because there's a few things I want to reinforce today also.

But all in all, you can say deities, and I'll say Godhead, and we'll both be right if we're looking at the Greek. But the bottom line is, to worship Christ as a deity is evil. That's linking directly with the Roman Catholic Church, who did what?

Came in through deception and merged Christianity with paganism, and now Christ has been trumped by the deities of Rome and Greece.

So, do you accept the book of Revelation as an inspired record as well?

The Bible says, "...seek ye out of the book in reading. No one of these shall fail, and none shall wonder at me.". I don't deal with part of the book, half of the book, a quarter of the book. I deal with the book from Genesis, to the first page of Genesis, to the last page of Revelation.

It's our book.

You know that this is my family's book. Okay, so, when you say that it's evil to worship Jesus, then in Revelation—.

I don't say it's evil to worship Jesus. You said that.

I'm—okay, then you—I thought you just said a moment ago that it's an evil thing to worship Jesus as a deity. Did I misunderstand you? That's what I said. That is what you said. Okay. If that's the case, then when Jesus is worshipped by every created thing in the book of Revelation, chapter 5, verses 13 and 14, was that evil taking place in heaven?

Well, that's not evil, okay? But now you're going into something else. You're going into something entirely different. The worship that's in the Scriptures and what the Christian churches are doing is two separate things.

Okay, so when we do what every created thing—Revelation, chapter 5—and every created thing which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, I heard saying, to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.

And the four living creatures kept saying, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped—that's proskuneo—and the object is he who sits upon the throne and the Lamb. So when even the highest created beings are worshipping the Lamb, we're not to worship the Lamb the way they do?

Okay, see, now you're conflicting. I'm trying to help you here. You're conflicting again. Again, Christ is not worshipped as a deity. Okay, I'm not going to break up that word deity and worship and play your game, okay?

They're not worshipping Christ as a deity, okay? When you look up that word worship, okay? And I'm going to get it right here. That means to reverence or adore in the Greek. They're reverencing Him. They're respecting Him.

We respect Him. But Christ did not come down to do His own will but the will of Him that sent Him. He paved the way so that we could worship and honor the Father, you understand? So all in all, again, the worships you're bringing in is not the worshiping of deities we see in the earth.

Today. Okay, so all creation is around the throne of God, and they're ascribing blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever, and they're bowing down, and they're falling down,.

But they're not worshipping. They're only honoring. No, no, I didn't say that, see? So you've got to realize, you will never lure me into your games. I'm not here to play games.

Sir, I'm not playing games. I'm asking you an honest question.

I'm going to answer it again. If Christ came before me, I would bow. He's king. I would reverence Him. He's king. But again, the deities that are being worshipped in this earth, using His name is evil, because the Jesus or the Jesus—I'm going to say Jesus because the majority of people here acknowledge that, even though they didn't know Jesus in existence until the mid to late 1700s.

The Jesus that we know today, you understand? Let me make it clear. The Jesus that you claim you know is really pagan. It's Nimrod and his mother, Saramasus, using Jesus' name. So those are the deities being worshipped as deities in the earth.

That was my point when I spoke to Mr. Malone. You don't have no problem—let me tell you, I can go and get a few coins and do the same thing you're doing and go through every worship scripture in the Bible and acknowledge if Christ was here, I wouldn't worship Him according to the scriptures, but not according to the deity worship of the earth today, in which they have flip-flopped Christ for Satan and his ministers, and Saramasus, and like they celebrate Easter, Christmas, and all that.

All that is ascribed to Saramasus and Nimrod and Taurus. So again, those are the deities I was speaking of, because Christ is not being taught in this earth. Those deities are. So that worship you're going into right there, James, I'm down with it 100 percent, but it's not the worship that you see in the earth today.

Okay. Well, obviously, I would respond that it is impossible to read the book of Revelation and not recognize that what's happening in Revelation 4 and 5 is the highest form of worship. It is what's going on right in front of the throne of God, and it is ascribed to the Lamb.

There isn't any way around that textually, I think, if we're deriving our beliefs from scripture rather than trying to draw parallels to things that have no connection, such as Tammuz, or Babylon, or things like that.

And so exegetically speaking, that's where that's coming from. But you have some questions you wanted to get to, and you have the second one in the list. So do you want to ask that, or do you want me to read it and just go from there?

I'm not sure if you have the file in front of you.

I have the file in front of me, James, and I'll answer all your questions. I'll ask those questions in a moment. But again, I know you want to understand this deity thing in a moment, from the beginning.

But the whole deal is this. The deities of this earth are evil, and you cannot relate them to the worships in scripture and what we read in Revelation. They're two separate things, okay? People are not supposed to be worshipping in these Christian churches on Sunday morning.

That's evil. They're worshipping Tammuz. That's ancient.

Babylon. Well, sir, you're making a lot of assertions. I would like to respond to all these things, because I've heard it all before, but could we stick with these questions here?

We're going to stick with them, but if you notice, I allow you to veer off, okay? This is your show, but when I veer off, allow me also.

Actually, so far, you've gotten about a third more time than I have, so we've been very fair.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Matter of fact, you could bring on the rest of your.

Questions. No, let's go ahead and go back and forth. Your first question was, who would you consider the harlots that stem from the Catholic Church being she's mother of harlots? And so, I'm assuming a certain interpretation on your part of the Book of Revelation at that point, and that also seems to come up a little bit later on in the fifth question as well.

And obviously, we're going to have a problem here, because as a professor of church history, I recognize that the identity of Roman Catholicism is extremely problematic. I don't believe that it's appropriate to identify anything historically as the Roman Catholic Church until about the fourth ladder in council in 1215.

Up until then, you have really a development over time. Many of the dogmas and doctrines of Rome develop over time. There wasn't even a single bishop in Rome itself until the middle of the second century.

They had a plurality of elders rather than a single bishop. And so, there wasn't a pope. And even once there was a single bishop, he was not, for example, viewed as the head of the church at the Council of Nicaea, for example.

The bishop of Rome had almost no role at all. And so, there was development over time. And so, when it's appropriate to identify something as the Roman Catholic Church is a matter of tremendous dispute and really has to go back to what doctrine or dogma that we're talking about, whether it be purgatory or Marian dogmas or things like that.

It's going to depend on what you're referring to. So, when you say the harlots that stem from the Catholic Church being she's mother of harlots, certainly, it is common to assume that in the modern period, the Roman Catholic Church fits into the general scheme of the Book of Revelation in regards to harlotry and so on and so forth.

But in the days of John, when he wrote this, what he wrote had to have a meaning to the church that he wrote to. And there was no Roman Catholic Church in that day. The Roman system of religion, the worldly system, the bowing down, the fact that you were required to say, Kaiser curia, Caesar is Lord, rather than Jesus curia, Jesus is Lord.

That was the world system that would then be seen in many different religious movements down through history, including the papal system later on. But in John's day, in the Book of Revelation, there was no Roman Catholic Church to make that application, too.

So, it's really not a question that I can answer because it assumes a much earlier origination for Romanism than a serious study of history, an affair study of history, would allow us to actually have.

Is that all right?

Yeah, but even though that really was so far off from why I asked the question.

Well, please go ahead and go ahead and give a context, if you'd like.

But thank you for the history lesson. That's good. Now, let me explain why I asked that question, James. I asked the question simply because probably those that are in the Bible realize the Roman Catholic Church is against the true doctrine of Christ.

That's without—we don't have to debate that. All they call for is having a man as a deity being worshiped.

Excuse me, sir, there's somebody else on with you, and their connection is making a bunch of noise.

On our end. I don't know how. One moment. Let me fix this.

It stopped now, but there was a—it was making it almost impossible to hear you, and I don't want you especially to be not able to be heard.

Well, I'll tell you what, it wasn't that, because the other person I have on is totally on mute. Nothing is going on there.

Okay, well, I'm just saying it's cleared up now, but for what you were just saying about the Roman Catholic Church, the gospel, please repeat it, because, well—.

Okay, I'll repeat it, but believe me, no one's going to come in here, and let me say this.

Okay, wait a minute. We just discovered something. When you moved something in front of you just now, it's almost like it was rubbing on a mic, okay? Okay, now I lost you. Now I completely lost you. So I—yeah, I cannot hear you at all now.

I'm sorry. When you put the earpiece in and picked it up, I think you have a short—is your earpiece also your microphone? I think you have a short—. I think you have a short—. One moment, one moment. You got it.

We got you back.

Okay, this is better? Yes, sir. Okay, yeah, yeah. I think something happened on my microphone. It's corrected now. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I think that was a short, and it was happening. Okay, now, back to where you were.

All right, thank you. Back to where I was here, I was speaking of how the Catholic Church is really the forerunner of the majority of doctrine within the Western world. Whether or not churches today want to acknowledge it, okay, the majority of doctrine stems from what the Roman Catholic did while conquering the West, and they spread this throughout the earth.

And even though I notice a lot of Christian churches and others separate themselves from the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, they still have some—you know, they still have a little tinge, a little residue from the whore that taints their whole doctrine.

The example I can give you is you have people today, and you know, ignorantly, you know, calling on Jesus. I'm going to give that as an example, because you do that a lot also. When—I don't have to debate this with you—we all know there was no particular name or letter as just the letter J at all during the time Christ walked the earth.

So when it reads Acts 4 and 12, neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. When this was penned during the time of the disciples, there was no such man walking the earth by the name of Jesus.

They weren't operating with Christ as Jesus, the disciples who were all Israelites. Okay, there was no James. So because of that, the whole earth has been deceived in the understanding of the name whereby men could be saved.

And that all stemmed from the deception of the Roman Catholic—the deception that came from the Roman Catholic Church, okay? So when I say that, we're speaking strictly doctrine here, okay? When it comes to that, not only have we called on a new Christ, which is linked to Zeus, and I'm going to go there in a moment, we've also ascribed deity holy days, such as Christmas, Easter, Sunday worship, the traditions that were in Rome as Saturnalia, that was worship in Greece.

So really, the majority of people that call on Jesus and who are in the Christian church would be considered pagans. If we were to roll back the clock, all of these people would be in a Roman temple worshiping Zeus.

Our point is we understand that the Gentiles worship these deities and worship Zeus. That's what they've always done. My point and our point is to bring forth the truth through the four corners of the earth.

Then, at that point, the end shall come. The world haven't heard the truth yet, okay? The world is deceived. Okay. Well, I would simply respond to that by.

Saying it's very clear to me that we do not have to utilize the specific language of antiquity to call upon God. I'm well aware, for example, that Yahweh is the proper pronunciation, Tetragrammaton, but obviously, even in the Greek language, which was indisputably the original language of the New Testament, Jesu Christu is perfectly acceptable, and any other language is perfectly acceptable.

The point is that the Christians are described as those who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours, in 1 Corinthians 1 -2. That term that's used there, epikaleo, is in prayer. To pray to Jesus is to worship him.

That's the highest form of worship. And so, I reject, obviously, the idea that whether you use a J or not is irrelevant to the object of your worship and the identity of that individual. And so, this whole idea about Rome being the mother of all these things, again, historically, there wasn't a Roman Catholic church to do these things.

It's one thing to make these assertions. It's another thing to back them up with original sources and historical sources that actually have meaning. And so, for example, I guess this is, we're sort of getting ahead of ourselves, but I'll go ahead and mention it.

Your question you just brought up, did he know, speaking of me, the Madonna and Virgin was worshipped as deities in ancient Egypt and Babylon, and you've been talking already about these other goddesses and gods, Astarte, and so on and so forth, from question five.

The Roman Catholic church began to follow the Babylonian deities using the names of Mary and Christ. They also began to keep the same Babylonian practice such as Sunday worship, Easter from the goddess Astarte, and Christmas.

And so, you've already brought all these things up, so let me just provide a brief response. I would—.

Hold up, though. We're going too far, because we need to answer—you need to answer to what I'm bringing forth first, because—and you're pretty slick with it, and that's good. I need you to listen to what I'm saying.

I'm not even going to—we can't allow that to happen, where you go so far that you spew a lot of verbiage through philosophy and make people think—make people believe what you're saying is in Scripture.

So I'm going to slow that up real quick. Number one, we both agree, whether you say that it doesn't matter, we can both agree that the disciples who were Israelites during Christ's time wasn't casting out demons in the name of Jesus.

We can both agree that, because there was no Js. Can we agree there?

Yesu. Yesus. Whether you use a J in English is irrelevant. This language—.

No, no, no. I'm saying, you're saying it's irrelevant, but let's deal with what is. Let's deal with the fact that Jesus wasn't used by the disciples when they were casting out spirits.

None of the words we're using since we're speaking English were used by the disciples, because English did not exist as a language.

Thank you. Thank you. So that brings up my other point, okay? Because of that, okay, I believe in also the apocryphal books. Because of that, it tells you that the Hebrew language gives a stronger force.

Not that the Most High is not going to hear us in another language, because I grew up calling on Jesus, and he heard me and delivered the true understanding of what was before the deception, okay? So we're not saying that the Most High won't listen to you if you ignorantly don't know him through ignorance.

What we're saying is that we have a derivative, a watered-down, a diminished name that was given to us for our time that wasn't in existence during Christ's time. That's the whole point. And now it's being revealed what his true name was, and not only was his name hid, he was hid under these other deities you're about to go into.

That was the point of me going into ancient Babylon and those deities, James, is the fact that these are the same deities that are being ascribed to our Bible today, and many people are leaving the Bible because they're finding out that these deities are evil and false, and they are relating those deities.

To the Bible. Excuse me, I know you've made the assertion that in Christian churches we're worshiping Tammuz or something like that. I don't know almost any Christians even know who Tammuz was, but the idea of making a connection between ancient Babylonian deities and the New Testament that specifically reveals to us that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he's the creator of all things, etc., etc., that's a huge leap that you've asserted, but you haven't proven.

Maybe you could try to do that, and also you just for some reason brought up the apocryphal... I missed that. What haven't I proven? You haven't proven the connection between your assertion about Babylonian deities and the Christian belief in the New Testament and its teaching about who Jesus is.

You've just said they're the same thing, but they're not. You have to provide some evidence of that. I mean, I could just sit here and make a... Of course, you want some evidence?

Yes, that'd be nice. Okay, absolutely. Now, are we going to deal with outside sources of history or do you want me to bring that evidence, the historical, or just stay in scriptures? I'm going to do it according to your line so that we don't have any issues.

I can do it either way.

If you can demonstrate a direct connection between Babylonian mystery religions...

Here's a direct parallel for you. Okay, number one, Sunday worship was established first in Babylon in the Nimrod. How do you know that? What's your original source? My original source is the two Babylons and all the references that came out of that.

Alexander Hislop has been thoroughly discredited by every historian who's ever dealt with this material. It is utterly irrelevant. Let's try something meaningful.

He's even discredited by pagans, so I don't believe in those...

I'm not a pagan. I'm not a pagan, first of all. Hislop was not a Hebrew, and that's not original sources.

Okay, okay. Well, guess what? The references in the book points to ancient Babylonian worship, even outside of Alexander Hislop. It's known that Sunday worship was under Nimrod and Saramasus, and the Most High had a holy day called the Sabbath day, all right?

So the Most High never told Israel or the people in the New Testament at any time to switch the Sabbath to Sunday. What's the Lord's day, sir? Listen, that's number one. So you see, you asked me to prove something.

I am. Allow me to prove it, and whether you agree with it or not, you know, you have the right to your opinion. But all you've given me is Hislop. Listen, listen, listen. I'm going to give you some more parallels.

Another parallel is Christmas. No way in scriptures does it say celebrate Christ's birthday. As a matter of fact, it tells you in the book of Luke that shepherds were abiding in the field during the birth of Christ, which means that there was no way the shepherds were out during the time of winter during Christ's birth.

So for them to ascribe a Babylonian day of Saturnalia, Rome, and a Babylonian worship of the child, Nimrod, the what you call virgin child of Babylon, they said that the goddess of star, which is Easter, was impregnated by a power or a God and bear the child the 25th.

So all of these things are not in scriptures, but yet Christians ascribe these pagan holy days to Christ. So they are worshiping a new Christ. They are worshiping a satanic deity. And guess what? The majority of people are doing this in total ignorance.

We don't fault them. That's why the truth is here, so that now that they can make a conscious.

Decision to do what's right, to defend the true faith of Christ. So far, I have not heard a single original source. I've heard a lot of assertions, but I've not heard any original sources. For example, if I were to ask you what kuria kei hamera means in Revelation chapter one, which means the Lord's day, and then go into the earliest sources of Christianity, which would be works such as the Didache.

Have you ever read the Didache, sir? No. Okay. If you were to go into the... And when I talk about doing history as one who teaches history, when I talk about original sources, Hyslop is not an original source.

That is as at best a secondary source. For you. But for... No, no. But for all historians, an original source...

No, for the historians that agree with you.

No. Sir, an original source would be one that would take us to the individual. So in other words, if you're going to make claims about Babylon, then it's going to need to be a Babylonian ancient source.