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. And 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 Vocab 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 Vocab 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 Vocab Malone. 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 Scriptures that say 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 Christ Church. Okay, hi, Elder. Were we just listening to you?

Yes, you were. Okay, good. All right. I just wanted 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,

Ahaiyah, 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, Ahaiyah. Ahaiyah b'shem Yeshua. I 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 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,

Rich, that's your name, right? 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 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, it's because I've read the

Bible, and there's no place in the Bible that states Christ 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." Mm -hmm. 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 theatos 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

Theophilus 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, well, 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 have recognized 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 1 .20 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 to 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 did 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 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.

It's a Zion line. 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 bring forth 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, I 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 didn't say it was evil to worship Jesus. You said that. Okay, then

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, 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 Him.

You understand? So, all in all, again, the worships you're bringing in is not the worship 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? See, you ought 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 there was no

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

Seramis 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 Seramises, like they celebrate

Easter, Christmas, and all that. All that is ascribed to Seramises. And Nimrod and Tammuz.

So again, those are the deities I was speaking of, because Christ is not being toured in this earth.

Those deities are. So that worship you're going into right there,

James, I'm down with it 100%, 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 wanted to stay on this deity thing in a moment, I mean, 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. 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.

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. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Now...

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 Lateran 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

Caesar is Lord rather than 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 would really, and a fair study of history, would allow us to actually have.

Okay. Is that all right? All right. Yeah, but even though that really was so far off from why

I asked the question. Well, please 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 all of 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. 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. 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, 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 shortness.

I think you have a shortness. 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. 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 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 worshiped 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. And that term that's used there, epikaleo, is in prayer.

And 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. Just, you know, 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 rec... Hold up, though. We're going too far because we need to answer, you need to answer to what

I'm bringing forth. Okay. 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 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 J's. Can we agree there? Yesu. Yesus.

Whether you use a J in English is irrelevant. This language... I'm saying, 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. Yeah. It's 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 worshipping

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, et cetera, et cetera. 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 proved? 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... I can do it right now.

Okay. 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...

Okay. Here's a direct parallel for you. Number one,

Sunday worship was established first in Babylon under 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 his material.

It is utterly irrelevant. Let's try something meaningful. Even discredited by pagans. No, 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 in Saramis. And the Most High had a holy day called the

Sabbath day. 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.

See, you asked me to prove something. I am. Allow me to prove it. And whether you agree with it or not, 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 the scriptures does it say celebrate Christ's birthday. 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 would 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.

Okay, 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

Kuriakei Hemera means in Revelation chapter 1, 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...

When I talk about doing history as one who teaches history, when I talk about original sources,

Hislop is not an original source. That is, at best, a secondary source. For you. No, no.

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.

Those were original sources. And then later works describe these things are called secondary sources.

This isn't an issue of argument. This is simple how you do history. If you don't do it this way, you're not doing history.

Okay, according to you. By any rational means. By any rational definition anywhere.

Listen, I'm not here to philosophically argue with you about history, okay? Christ... Let me make this clear.

No, wait a minute. Christ did not deal with Sunday worship. Neither did the disciples. Okay, alright.

That's your assertion. I say to you, the book of Revelation says

John was in the spirit on the Kuriakei Hemera, the Lord's Day, which without question is

Sunday. That had nothing to do with Babylonians. It had nothing to do with imitating worship of anybody else.

It was the day that the historical evidence demonstrates believing Christians met for worship in recognition of the resurrection of the

Son of God on the first day of the week. It has nothing to... Listen, that's a lie. Okay, if you say it's a lie, document it.

That's a lie that came from the Council of Nicaea and we're not dealing with it. Document it. Show me from the proceedings of the

Council of Nicaea where that came from. Listen, this is where I'm going to document. The Exodus.

Where it says, remember the Sabbath to keep it holy and Exodus 20 and 8. Listen, so nowhere did the

Most High Lord's Day change to the first day of the week. My friend, please. Listen, you are good at arguing points, but you're not good at the

Bible. Okay, sir. One of us has been dealing with the text. You just said that what

I said was a lie, and when I asked you to document it, you're not giving me documentation to demonstrate that what

I said historically was a lie. If you're going to call... You can say I disagree, but if you're going to call it a lie...

The reason why I'm going to call it a lie, because that's what it is. In the book, in the Bible, it tells us about the

Sabbath to remember it so that the Gentiles won't have us forget it. Okay? All through the

Bible, Christ was dealing on the Sabbath. Even Paul, on the Sabbath day, when the

Jews no longer listened to him, he went the next Sabbath to teach the Gentiles.

So the Gentiles were learning on the Sabbath after Christ already died and was resurrected.

So these are the sources, the Bible. I'm not here to argue every book you done read. I'm not being tossed to and thrown different winds of doctrine, of history.

Okay, if you... The wisdom of this world is foolishness with the most. I'm just going to have to ask you, are you able to chill out enough that we can proceed with the other questions, or...

Because right now, you seem to be dominating and getting a little bit on the angry side.

Are you going to be able to chill out enough for the last question? Brother, let me make this clear, though. Okay, with this angry thing.

See, also, I can understand the... Let me tell you, you're really slick.

Because you do it a different... That's a very... That is a very disrespectful... Maybe you don't mean it disrespectfully, but it sounds like you're saying that I'm being deceptive or something like that.

Absolutely. Sir, I've done... That's what I'm saying. You are saying that. Okay, I've done over 150 moderated debates around the world.

This is not the first false teaching that I have encountered. I've heard every one of these objections. I teach

Greek and Hebrew. I teach church history. And I can tell that what you're saying, you believe wholeheartedly, but you are wholeheartedly wrong.

And you can't back these things up. And that's why you keep saying, well, I'm not going to go there. I'm not going to go there.

You stay with what's comfortable. For example, I could challenge you on the Apocrypha. And I could demonstrate that the

Jews, the Hebrews, never accepted those books of Scripture. That's another issue. We could go into it.

I've done multi -hour long debates on that subject at places like Boston College.

So the point is, sir, if we want to get to the last questions, I'm just going to have to ask you, are you going to be able to do that without being insulting or things like that?

Can we do that? Because I think it would be helpful to the people watching. I'm watching people who are commenting and they're finding this useful.

So I'm just hoping that we can turn the temperature down a little bit so that we can actually get to the issue.

Is that going to work? That'll work. And you know what, James? I apologize if I offended you, but I'm going to say this.

You know what? Let's just go forward. I apologize. My number four question on the thing here was the belief in the deity of Christ came about the

Council of Nicaea in A .D. 325. So what I wanted to do is

I wanted to just read for you a couple of quotes and get your response to it. We don't have to spend a lot of time on this if you don't want to, but maybe this will be useful to you.

Have you ever, I'm not asking for expansion on this, but have you ever had the opportunity of reading the epistles of Ignatius the

Bishop of Antioch who was martyred in 108 A .D.? No. Okay.

As he was going to Rome to be martyred as a Christian follower of Jesus, he wrote seven epistles to various churches and one to an individual.

And I'd like to read you a couple of quotes because you said this was invented at the Council of Nicaea, and yet this is one, obviously 108 is what, 217 years before the

Council of Nicaea. And so one of the earliest followers of Jesus outside the New Testament, he says, quoting,

Ignatius who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been blessed in greatness to the fullness of God the

Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion, by the will of the

Father and of Jesus Christ our God, to the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation, abundant greetings in Jesus Christ, and blameless joy.

So he calls Jesus our God and in the same letter he says, My spirit is but an offscouring of the cross, which is a scandal to the unbelieving, but to us it is salvation and life eternal.

Where is the wise man? Where is the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are called to understanding? For our God, Jesus the

Christ, was conceived by Mary according to a dispensation of God from the seed of David, yes, but of the

Holy Spirit as well. And in writing to the Romans, I'll just give you one more, I've got at least ten others if you wanted them, but just one more, in his letter to the

Romans, for our God, Jesus Christ, being in the Father is more plainly seen. So, given that there are numerous sources of individuals speaking not only of Jesus as God, but speaking with Trinitarian language, such as the

Epistle of Clement to the Romans, which could be even in the first century. Melito of Sardis, oh my goodness, talking about God being crucified, so on and so forth.

How can you say that this was an invention at the Council of Nicaea when even

Arius, who was the primary opposition at Nicaea to Alexander, who was from Alexandria, even he described

Jesus as God, it was just this definition of a God who had been created at a later time.

Everyone there agreed that this language was used of Jesus. So, how could it be invented there when all of the historical documentation says that in the centuries beforehand there was a tremendous amount of discussion amongst the

Christians of this common belief of theirs in the deity of Jesus Christ? Okay, good question.

Let me answer. Number one, it wasn't until the time of Constantine or the

Council of Nice that this new doctrine would have a government world, which you would call proclamation of doctrine to be taught throughout the earth.

Agreed. Okay, so we agree there. Yes. So, when I said that, that's what I meant.

Now, the information that you're going into, all right, now I'm not dealing with the deity thing because you're still there and you can stay there, but the whole point is when you look at the word

God in the New Testament, sometimes it denotes plural.

Like, when you go to John 1 and 1 and you answer to that, because maybe this can clear it up for Christians who believe that Christ is

God and deal with that theology. When you go to John 1 and 1, it says, in the beginning was the

Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Right? So, they'd be like, well, okay, well, he must be

God. But Christians, you have to go back to the beginning. So, you have to go back to Genesis and read

Genesis 1 and 1 when it says, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

It's the same God, right? But then when you go down to the 26th verse, it says, let us make man in our image.

So, what's going on here is that that God is not actually singular. That God is plural, which means, in the beginning, the

Elohim, that's what it says in the Hebrew, the Elohim, or in modern Yiddish, the

Elohim, created the heaven and the earth. So, now we know that's not just Christ. Right?

So, then we go back, so what it says, let us make man in our image. What is the image of the most high?

You go to Genesis 5, it says, the image, male and female, made he them.

The image of the most high, male, female. Right? So, now we understand that, okay, male -female life was from the beginning.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. So, now, is Christ a God? Absolutely.

He was one of the original three. Okay? So, when you go to John 1, and read it in that proper context, knowing that that word

God is not a singular, and see, what throw a lot of people off is there's no S when we read it in our

English, but in the Hebrew, it's yam on the end, which is plural, more than one.

So, let me explain it. So, in John 1 and 1, we must read it in that context, him being one of the three.

Okay. Let me read it. Let me explain this all the way, then I'll turn it back over, because you ask, and I'm going to explain it, so that we can have, we can give the proper context to what you've just said.

In the beginning was the Word. He's one of the three. The Word is Christ. The Word was with the

Most High. That means, he wasn't the Most High, he was with the Most High.

And the Word was God. That means the Word was an Alahia, still him being one of the three.

That's the explanation for that God there for you. Okay. You said that the, so do you not believe that Genesis 1, 1 begins

Berashith bara Elohim? I'm reading it.

That's, yes, it starts there, yes. Okay. And because you gave a different reading than Elohim.

No, it's Alahayim. In the ancient Phoenician, it's Alahayim. I didn't give a different definition for that.

But the Hebrew is Elohim. You think there was a version before the Hebrew? Well, I'm speaking to you, you're speaking in the modern dialect.

Okay. That's the whole thing. All right, let's not worry about the pronunciation. It's the same thing, but I'm just speaking

Okay, and it's plural. Listen, I'm explaining to you. I'm speaking in an ancient

Phoenician dialect, not the modern day Hebrew you hear today. Okay. Could you explain to me, could you parse for me the verb bara?

Let me get it here. That's create. Yeah. And is that a plural or a singular?

That create, that word is just create. Is it a plural or a singular? Sir, let me just be very blunt here.

It's a singular. Do you read Hebrew? Sorry, it's a singular. Do you read

Hebrew, sir? Yes, I know some Hebrew, yes. Okay. And get back to the point.

That's singular, sir. All right, it's singular. So, in the

Hebrew Old Testament, when Elohim is used with a singular verb, how does the

King James Version always translate it? As a singular, right?

Not as gods, but as God. Singular. Right? Well, I got a

Torah in front of me, so what we do is we parallel the Torah with the King James Version.

And it's Elohim, it's Elohim. It's the same thing. Elohim. It's more than one. Okay, my point is this.

For a number of decades, since the 1980s, I have dealt with the

Mormons. I'm not sure if you've ever engaged with Mormons in their beliefs. But they are polytheists.

They believe they're literally an unlimited number of gods. And I have had to point out to them many times that in the

Tanakh, in the Hebrew Scriptures, while the word Elohim is, in fact, a plural, when it is used with a singular verb, it is always understood only as a singular.

God, not as gods. And so, when you say the context of John 1 .1

needs to go back to Genesis 1 .1 and this is plural, the verb is a singular.

There is only one God, Yahweh, under consideration here. And when you look at what

John does in John 1 .1 through 18, he reveals to us the

Father and the Son and he describes the Son, in John 1 .18, as managanes theos, the unique God.

Now, I'm a monotheist. I believe there's only one God. And so, I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about the three.

It sounds like you have a henotheistic idea here where you have one main God and then lesser gods beneath him.

I'm not really 100 % certain. Okay, well, let me clear it up for you. Let me clear it up for you.

When it says, let us make man in our image, that wasn't speaking of a singular, okay?

So, given proper understanding to the context of the Bible, which is my forefather's books, let me make it clear to you.

That was a plural. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. First John 5 and 7 says there's three bear record in heaven and those three are one.

So, that's that let us make man in our image. It's not singular. Now, we can go to the next point because you will argue with whatever you've been studying that it's singular when the

Bible says let us make man in our image and we're clarifying, we're making it clear that Christ is not the

Father. He's the Son of the Father. Of course. And the Holy Spirit is not Christ. Of course.

And the Father is not the Holy Spirit. Do you think we believe that? No, I didn't, no.

Not only speaking to you, I'm teaching at the same time. Okay, but do you think that that's what the

Christian doctrine of the Trinity is? I'm not, we here to bring the gospel of Christ.

No, I'm just asking a simple question. Listen to what I'm saying. What we're saying is we understand, like for instance, and whether or not you take these as references, the

Romans were behind deception that would lead people into worshiping Zeus. Okay?

So the whole deal is they needed that minor theistic term through Christ to go, to point right back to their main deity.

What Romans? What Romans? The Roman Empire. The Romans, the

Caesars, those guys. The Caesars, the Caesars cared about Christianity in the first few centuries?

No, what I'm saying is they cared about their traditions and the worships of their gods.

And it continued from one generation to the next. And before you swing the pendulum, because I see you going somewhere else, let me make my point here.

Okay, of why the Christianity would like to only point to Christ being

God and not give glory to the Father like even

Christ said, listen, I came not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me. Call no man good but my

Father which is in heaven. Okay? On and on and on and on and he made it clear that he came to pave the way.

No man coming to the Father but through Christ. But it was the most high God to be worshiped.

So we both agree that it's good to be minor theistic and worshiping one

God. That's true. But we understand there's a difference between Ahaiah, the God of all gods, and his son, which is an essence from him.

An essence from him. Could you explain that? Has the son eternally existed?

Well, let me read Colossians 1 and 14. Yeah. And that will answer that particular question.

Okay? Matter of fact, let me start at Colossians 1 and 13. Yeah. What'd you say?

I think you meant 15, but that's all right. No, I meant 14. Okay.

Okay. Matter of fact, the 13th verse.

Who have delivered us from the power of darkness and have translated us into the kingdom of his dear son. Okay. And whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, speaking of Christ.

Who is the image of the invisible God. So he's not the invisible God. He's the image of the invisible

God. The firstborn of every creature. A creature is a product of creation.

So there was a time that he didn't exist, but only when he was in the Father. It was one time the

Father was alone. And Christ and the Holy Spirit came out of him.

That's what makes him the great I Am. He always existed. So Jesus isn't the

I Am. And let me correct something else. The Tetragrammaton is also a deception.

Really? That wasn't the name that was given to Moses. The Tetragrammaton is a

Zionist, Jewish, satanic, sorcerous deception. They have everyone worship Satan.

Really? Really. Even though it's right there in the Hebrew text we were just looking at. Exactly.

Because you have to realize the Mazarites, with their evil, took their hands and looked to scribe their

God in our records. And we're not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no.

Wait, wait, wait. I just can't let that pass. I can show you, I can show you the

Isaiah. You don't have to let it pass, but you have to let me explain what I'm saying and then you can just refuse.

You do that for long periods of time. The fact of the matter is the Mazarites flourished when?

When did they do their work? Do you know? Come on.

No, you don't. The point is, you don't know. And the fact of the matter is the

Isaiah scroll. Listen, listen, listen. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. Listen. I've been extremely patient.

Okay. The Isaiah scroll. Listen, listen. No, you listen to me for once. You keep saying, listen to me and I'll explain.

Okay. Let me explain something to you. The Isaiah scroll from the

Dead Sea Scrolls comes from a thousand years before the Mazaritic period and it contains the

Tetragrammaton. It can't have come from the Mazarites. That is a historically laughable assertion.

I didn't say it came from the Mazarites. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.

I said the Mazarites was behind the deception. Okay. Then it's in Isaiah, right?

When I say behind the... Listen, it would be juvenile to say the Mazarites created the

Tetragrammaton when the Mazarites didn't come around until about the first century. And then you have... Listen, and then you have the

Israelites who fell to that God 500 years before Christ. Yahweh in the

Tetragrammaton is the Canaanite God. And the Jewish powers, the Zionists, know this.

A matter of fact, when you look at a book... Okay. When I say that around the 6th to the 11th century, let me correct myself on the

Mazarites. Between the 6th and the 11th century, the Mazarites came on the scene and began to take our records once we fell and began to inject this name all over the earth.

But again, that name is the Canaanite God. Yah meaning power and hava which means mischief fallen one.

That's Satan himself. And a matter of fact, there's a book out now, okay, it's called the

Illuminati 2, which it goes into the fact that the Tetragrammaton is the

God Lucifer. Okay. And the Mazarites and the Masons know this. So that injection happened not only in Hebrew, and again...

so wait, so you're telling me that when Isaiah 44 2 says, thus says

Yahweh, that this is a corruption of the scriptures? Yes.

And your evidence for this is a book about the Illuminati? No. Okay, what's your historical evidence for it?

Textually speaking. Okay. In the scriptures. Yeah. Okay.

The Most High himself gives Moses his name. Ahaiyah, Ashar, Ahaiyah, right there in Exodus 3.

And he says, this is my name forever throughout all generations. Okay.

So there was only one way to translate that, so they couldn't change it there, but they began to change it throughout the whole book, except in that one place where the

Mosai mentioned his name. In Exodus 3 and 13 through 16. All right. Do you have the

Hebrew of Isaiah 44 2 in front of you? Yeah, it's going to say the

Tetragrammaton. I know that. Okay, then, do you have any manuscripts of the book of Isaiah that do not have the

Tetragrammaton? My whole King James Version Bible in the

Old Testament is filled with the Tetragrammaton. I know that. So my point is, if you're going to assert that there has been a textual change in the biblical text itself, you can't simply assert it.

You have to prove it. So what is your manuscript evidence that there has been a change?

Okay. Now, you're going to continue to ignore what I say and say

I didn't prove anything. Are you? You seem to confuse assertion with proof.

We obviously deal with things differently along these lines. When I debate

Muslims and I make a claim about the Quran, I have to be able to back it up with the

Quran itself. I can't just simply make an assertion. And you make assertions and think that by making assertions you've proven something.

You say that because a form of a Hebrew verb is used in Exodus 3, which is directly related to the same root of Yahweh in the rest of the

Tanakh, that there's been some change made. And I go, excuse me, but we have entire manuscripts.

We have manuscript traditions within the Hebrew manuscripts. We have other, the

Aramaic Targums. We have the Greek Septuagint. And when variations like this take place, we can trace them to the various traditions that we have available to us in the manuscript tradition.

And I'm simply saying to you, if you're going to make an assertion, you've got to back it up with something that is actually substantiatable from a scholarly perspective.

That's all. So, what's your manuscript evidence that when Isaiah wrote

Isaiah 44 .2, he did not say ko amar Yahweh?

Let me show you something here. I think that you have

Skype up, don't you? I can see it. Okay, great. I'm going to send you something.

I'm going to pull it up on Skype. And you describe what you see. And this is from a satanic temple that I'm sending you, okay?

A satanic temple from when? Date on this, please. This is a modern, matter of fact, this is early 1900.

Okay, and how is this relevant to Isaiah 2700 years ago?

Okay. So we're just going to run around in circles here. This is what

I'm asserting. Okay? I'm asserting that the Old Testament was tainted by the by the the

Mazarites. Okay? The so -called Jewish scholars to promote their name in the

Hebrew records. That there's history that proves that Yahweh predates the time that the

Israelites went into Egypt. Okay? Yahweh is a Canaanite god.

It's not the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Okay? Now, let me get, and to prove that, let me get this out of Jeremiah real quick.

Because the Bible said the scribes would do this. Let me read it. In Jeremiah 8 and 8, it tells you,

How do you say we are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it.

The pen of the scribes is in vain. So we knew that the scribes would do things evil in our records.

And guess what? It didn't stop the Most High from revealing his name, which is Ahaiah Ahaiah, and his son

Yeshiah, to be exalted throughout the four corners of the earth before the return of our

Savior. All right, so I earlier pointed out that the

Mazarites flourished around the 9th century after Christ. Yeah, yeah, between the 6th and the 11th century, yes.

We have Okay, we have the

Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea scrolls from 100 years before Christ.

Long before the Mazarites were around. Yeah. And that scroll then could not have been altered by the

Mazarites, right? Because it was buried in the desert. That is absolutely correct.

And so it says Yahweh, it has the

Tetragrammaton all the way through it. So, what you just said about the

Mazarites doing this couldn't have resulted in the corruption of the

Scriptures. No, what I'm trying to explain to you is, okay, the

Mazarites injected the information that they could control going forward. Into what?

Listen to me clearly. I'm trying to, I'm just asking, you said they injected. Into what? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Into our modern day publications.

Let me make this clear, okay? Again, even Hebrews went off, our people went off in the

Old Testament and began to scribe to the falling God.

That's why it tells us in Hosea, the second chapter, in the 16th verse, and it shall be at that day, say of the most high, that thou shall call me

Ishi and shall call me no more barely. When you look at that word barely, that derives in your strong concordance, you can go there from the word

Jehovah or the Tetragrammaton. So we began to scribe that name in reference.

Back then, the Mazarites just continued it. Bailey is from Baal, sir.

That's from Baal. Sir, you think I don't know Baal? Bailey is from Baal? You just said it was from the

Tetragrammaton. Sir, this is what you need to do. Okay? Go.

You have your strong concordance? Sir, I don't use strong concordance. I teach Hebrew. Listen, sir, listen.

Okay, well, I'm going to read this for those who can hear it. Okay? Bailey. Hebrew 1180 in the

Strongs. Okay? From 1167 with phenomenal suffix, my master

Bailey, a symbolical name of Jehovah, Bailey. Symbolical name where?

See, I'm sorry. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is not an inspired source. It's very dated.

And I'm sorry, but anyone who's dependent upon that is going to stumble many, many times.

I just highly recommend to you actually learning the language. It would help a lot. Well, you know what would help?

It would help if you give you would yield and actually give the floor back and give our scriptures back to, you know, because these are...

I'm sorry, they're not your scriptures, sir. They were given to the Christian church as a whole. James, listen. These scriptures were given through inspiration of our prophets.

These are our forefathers, my forefathers. That's your assertion. That's my assertion, and guess what?

You have no authority to tell me what's in this book. Well, you know, let me just ask one last thing here and I think we've pretty wrapped this up pretty well.

I need to go back to where we started because I didn't get a clear answer. When Paul wrote to the church at Colossae, what language did he write in?

Excuse me? When Paul wrote to the church at Colossae, what language did he write to them in?

Well, Paul understood different languages and a lot of times he wrote to them in the

Greek language. So would you say the original language for Romans would be Greek, not

Hebrew? Absolutely. Because it sounded to me like you were saying something other initially.

I just wanted to clarify that because that was one of the questions I still had. Believe it or not, it was clear to everyone that was listening.

It wasn't clear to you. Because I wasn't listening. Well, obviously that is your conclusion.

I'm more than happy to allow the audience to listen to the two sides and to follow the dialogue and make their decisions.

Don't you think that's a good thing to do? Yes. Good. Excellent. All right.

Well, I appreciate it. I think it's been very useful. It certainly has been enlightening for me.

And I appreciate you taking the time to do it. Well, all praises be to the Most High, and down will go up Babylon.

Rise, Israel. Shalom. Thank you. I'll have to admit, watching the

Twitter feed, some of you need to be punished for what you're doing to me in the

Twitter feed. Some of you just were not helping.

Okay? Now, Abu, you were. Thank you. I understand you. There's a fellow,

Abu Kamer, on Twitter that obviously knows his stuff and knows these guys a whole lot better than I do.

And I appreciate that. I have to add something here.

I don't think you knew this, but remember I said that there was someone on Skype with him? Yes. So when he first claimed that the

Mazarites were first century, and then less than 60 seconds later said, oh, 600 to 900?

600 to 1100? That guy helped him out. He has somebody typing. This person is typing information to him as that was ongoing.

Well, remember, I'm slick. Yes, you are. Very slick.

And did you notice he didn't even know who he was talking to? Well, yeah, there was that too. So he obviously hadn't even

Googled my name or anything. Apparently somebody told him your name was slick.

Yeah, well. That's fascinating stuff.

Fascinating stuff. I don't even know how to comment on it because any basic knowledge of Biblical backgrounds, church history, you know, that's sort of why we do this program.

Maybe some of you, you've heard me mentioning on the program, get to take this off now, that I'm teaching church history right now at PRBC on Sunday mornings and you sort of said, someday.

Maybe after listening to that, you'll go, I think I need to put that into my regular feed and listen to the church.

It's only 45 minutes. It's not very long. It's two editions of the briefing, basically.

We just did. We're into Clement right now. We're reading through segments of Clement. We're going to get into Didache before I head up to Colorado.

Hey, folks, when I'm asked the question, I've mentioned this many times, when I'm asked the question, what were the two classes that you took in college and seminary that have been the most useful to you in doing

Christian apologetics? What do I always say? Greek and church history.

Greek and church history. Now, today, Hebrew was relevant as well, obviously. Original languages.

But probably the single area where people are the weakest and have the least confidence is church history.

And you saw that there was one of the rare instances of silence when

I started quoting from Ignatius, made reference to other sources and things like that.

So, church history, the original languages, extremely important.

Extremely important. So useful. So helpful. And we need to...

You've got to admire the zeal. I don't admire the arrogance.

There's a lot of arrogance there. And arrogance combined with ignorance, bad thing.

Bad thing. But my hope can only be that someone will watch that and go, you know, there might be some more stuff we need to look at here.

Instead of just the Illuminati and the two Babylonians and oh, wow, just bad stuff.

Really, really, really bad, bad stuff. And Strong's Concordance?

I had some other stuff I was going to get to. I was going to... We didn't get into Christmas!

Ah, that was a shame. I almost got there. I had the book in my hand and then things sort of went away.

But I was going to ask him, so have you ever read Roger Beckwith's work, Calendar and Canology, Jewish and Christian?

His stuff on when Zechariah's family would have been ministering in the temple?

I know I didn't get into it. You don't think he did? No, I don't think so either. And how that actually lines up with a

December -January birth for Jesus and stuff like that? Nah, probably didn't get into that.

And I didn't get a chance to recommend the Gospel in the Greeks, Ronald Dash. Really important for stuff like this.

For Christians, if you want to read something about the Parallelomania and the Tammuz and all that silliness, blew that out of the water 50 years ago.

The internet doesn't care. But blew it out of the water 50 years ago. Thorough documentation.

Done. Done. Done. There you go. Thank you for that.

Very interesting, if a little weird. Yes. This guy, he's angry.

Really angry. Seems like a trend with the black Hebrew people. Well, yeah, that does seem to be the case.

Anyway. And Jack Cole said, Well, that was painful. So, anyway.

I knew it would be interesting. I didn't know how far into the subject we'd really be able to end up going.

But I just I wanted to be able to challenge those statements because they're just so manifestly untrue.

And I wanted to see because my understanding from listening to the program was that these are the best of the black

Hebrew Israelites. They are the ones that don't drop F -bombs every third word. There are some groups that do.

I'm not even going to bother with folks like that. Not even going to go there. Not interested.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. So, whatever spirit that is, it's not the spirit of God.

Very, very obviously. But I was listening to I wanted to get some more background.

So, I started listening last night. I did an 11 ,000 meter row last night and rode this morning.

I listened for about the first half of my ride before I hooked up with a good friend. We had a really good time riding in the dark, talking about the

Lord and spiritual things. It was very, very enjoyable. But, listening to some of the debates that another group has done.

And here's the problem. There are similarities between these groups. Evidently, the acceptance of the Apocrypha and stuff like that.

But then there are big differences. It's as hard for me right now to be able to know what the differences between these different groups are as it is for most

Christians to look at the Muslims and understand the difference between the Shiites and the Sunnis and the

Druze and the Ahmadi and so on and so forth. Or for the Muslims to look at us and figure out the difference between a

Lutheran and a Baptist. It's tough to figure out exactly where those things are.

But one thing I was absolutely convinced of as I listened this morning as I listened to a section where this whatever group this was was saying that salvation is only for Israel and that's them.

It's not for everybody else. The only thing I can think of this is the absolute negation of the

Gospel of Jesus Christ as fully as you can have it. As fully as you can have it. The whole point of Romans.

Jew and Gentile. One body. This is the mystery revealed. I mean, it's just so plain. And yet to hear these people zealously saying, no, no, no, no, no, no.

It is a true um it's a well, and again, they'll be very offensive by this, but it's clearly not, and I don't claim to be

Christian. So at least that's one good thing. I mean, they're, you know, they claim our Bible. Well, they claim the

King James Version. I don't even want to say anything to all you comma defenders.

But I have to point out, did you see that? Ha ha! Oh! It's not an argument.

I just thought I could just see, it flashed across my mind that certain people in the

Reform pub just started going Oh! No! Right when he said that.

That was funny. Anyway, okay. Thanks for hanging out for all of that.

That was um Where else are you going to get stuff like that on the internet, huh?

Other than on the dividing line. We'll be back again next week.

Not sure which day, but we'll let you know. And appreciate your listening. Hope it was helpful to you.