The Lion Roars…Off Key; JOwen, the Muslims and the TR; Zahndified; Synergism

Alright welcome to the dividing line. I want to jump right into it today because we have a lot to cover and I don't want to run out of time today. We're looking at a jumbo edition today. 90 minutes. Want to start with a clip.

I hope it still works. I hate doing it this way. I much rather have a local file but. News story out of Houston. Jewish community worried pastor sermon could fuel anti-semitism. Now the reason I want to play this is I'm going to be talking about escaping the great deception let the lion roar here in the first portion of the program.

And my concern is that this topic is rarely addressed without a super abundance. A superfluity is that the term the King James use. Superfluity of naughtiness. I think that was one of the phrases in the King James and excess of emotional energy.

And so here's a clip that I think illustrates exactly that and what we're up against when we try to discuss what the Bible's actual teaching is. Here's a clip from from Houston. Let's let's see if this is actually going to work.

You ready. Jewish community. Over a.

Sermon by Pastor Ed Young who leads one of Houston's megachurches Second Baptist Dr.

Young says he was just quoting scripture but critics believe his words could incite a listen anti-semitism. Doug Miller is in the newsroom. He's got the story Doug. How the pastor reportedly.

Said he was only quoting the Bible but tonight the Anti-Defamation League complains that his words could be misinterpreted to suggest that Jews are evil and dangerous. Are you righteous. Pastor Ed Young is one of the most influential spiritual leaders in Houston.

You see the problem with the Jews ladies and gentlemen but some of the words in one of his recent sermons have Jewish community leaders asking questions. I know inside you are dirty and corrupt and manipulative and you are trying to work out your own salvation.

Even in Judaism the sermon was not only delivered before his Second Baptist Church congregation but also broadcast on television. But the Jew took that floodlight the oracles of God the Torah the Word of God and they shined it down almost just for them.

They became exclusive and better than others and holy than thou. I don't believe dr. Young's.

Intent was anti-semitic but we have to be concerned the head of the Anti-Defamation League of Houston.

Said he was dismayed and he joined a delegation of rabbis that met with Pastor Young. These are.

Historical references that have over many years led to people's fear of the Jews and to anti-semitism and we're concerned whenever those words are used that it will fuel all kinds of prejudice and then.

Paul looks at the Jews and it's almost like he's saying I know how you Jews operate. How did Pastor Young later told the Jewish Herald Voice. He was just quoting Paul in the book of Romans. But he also told the newspaper quote.

I join you in your lack of comfort. You don't have a better friend than Ed Young. I am a friend of Israel. In quote a theologian at the University of Houston who's taught classes on Paul thinks the pastor went too far.

I think he is using inappropriate language. I wouldn't. I don't think that it's appropriate to call Jews dirty. And then everything that distances Christians from from Jews way up at the top. The most important thing the Jew had an advantage over everybody else on the earth.

But Young reportedly has agreed to pull the sermon off of Second Baptist website. But the pastor's words may have a lasting impact. We reached out to Dr. Ed Young but so far today no comment from him or other leaders of Second Baptist Church.

Reporting live in the newsroom. Doug Miller. KHOU. Wow gonna pull it. Don't pull it. Oh my goodness. You can't preach the New Testament anymore. You can't say what the New Testament said. Jews are dirty and so is everybody else.

It's called being sinners for stinking crying out loud. Oh my goodness. Oh but we live in a politically politically correct age and believe me I know I know what's happened since World War II. I know what's happened in New Testament studies.

I mean you can you can only whisper about what Paul said in New Testament studies today. Oh because the whole the whole thing is if Paul said something about Jews in the first century today we are so stupid and so utterly lacking in understanding that if he said it back then we are just like robots going to go that it must be true of everybody today too.

And therefore we're oh oh oh oh this I don't even know where to start because that's what this whole thing is about. You can't tell the difference um between the Pharisees who profited from the abuse of the audits in the days of Jesus and the Jewish shop owner next door.

That means you're stupid. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with the New Testament. It means you are lacking in common sense. And so you're supposed to pull sermons because there are people who lack common sense.

My friends every single truth in the Bible has been abused at some point in time if we stop talking about everything that's been abused we would have nothing left to say this political correctness. Oh my goodness.

It is stultifying. It just destroys the thought process of man. It is just it's just unbelievable. So I play that because that just happened to pop up. What's uh november 5th november 15th. Uh so that's fairly new just popped up and it just illustrates exactly what I'm encountering in reading Derek Frank's Escaping the Great Deception and last night watched Let the Lion Roar.

The Jewish-Christian Split and the Rise of Sacralism

Let's let's start off with some some basic foundational things. This is not about the reality that early on the church and the synagogue went separate directions. You can see that in the New Testament.

You can see the origins of it in the New Testament. You can see it in the persecution of the apostle Paul. You can see it in the Jews actively. When you say the Jews that's the biblical terminology. It's recognized that's not every Jew.

It's it's recognized that when you talk about the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees that there were good Jewish people there were God-fearers. There were people that came into the church they they embraced Jesus Christ there were there were those who were looking for the promised messiah etc etc etc.

The New Testament makes those distinctions. But evidently we're not smart enough to do that anymore. Because that's why we can't talk about this because there might be someone who you know the reduced book have lasting impact.

Yeah. Well I hope they have lasting impact if what everything I heard him say was straight out of the New Testament. So I guess you can't preach on what Paul said or anything like that. That's still bugging me.

I'm gonna I'm gonna minimize it here as I just can't even. Well you got that one there now now don't won't we be reminded um early schism between the Jews and the Christians now obviously the Romans didn't recognize this at first.

Uh it's pretty obvious that for example when Paul is arrested initially the response of the Romans is this is some inter-Jewish argument about resurrection. You all go you know I'm not gonna judge these things go away.

So you see the foundations there you see that there are Jews described in the New Testament who are absolutely as Paul was before his conversion unremittingly opposed to Jesus and in fact saw the proclamation of Jesus as the messiah as something had to be wiped out had to be wiped out just a deep deep animosity toward the message of the gospel.

And there are people like that today I can name some rabbis out there today that write books and and so on and so forth. Um so that's a given. Then what's unfortunately missing seemingly in the understanding of Derek Frank at all one of the key things that must be understood in church history that I'm again I was teaching this you can go back.

You can ask my students as if they would remember. I'd like to think they'd remember. But uh if they would remember you could ask the students that I started teaching. What year was this. 90 or 91. Get which year it was.

I think it was 91 that I taught my first uh undergraduate level class at Grand Canyon College back then had to become a university by 91. I don't remember anyway. Um sometime around there and the first class I taught was church history.

One of the last classes that I've taught church history you have in February now and numerous times in between in various contexts. If you ask them one of the things that I bring up at the beginning is that we need to recognize that the Jewish Christian split was a reality.

It was deep. It had tremendous negative impact upon the church especially in its view of the Old Testament and hence view of the New Testament. Because if you have a fundamentally flawed view of the Old Testament you're interpreting it primarily allegorically as origin did so on so forth.

Um it's going to. That's why Hebrews has been a closed book to so many for so long but it had tremendous negative impact in Jewish evangelism and upon the church so on so forth. But there was another item another issue that you see developing the big the big step that begins to move that direction is the council of Nicaea and Constantine's role therein.

Then you have Augustine. He does not foresee down the road what his words will lead to but especially in regards to the Donatist controversy he makes statements that 400 years down the road are going to lead to actions he could not have conceived of.

Unfortunately a lot of modern people could care less about that and will hold him accountable for all that. And that is the rise of sacralism. The state church under Theodosius at the end of the fourth century you have the establishment of Christianity as a state religion of the Roman Empire.

Um we can all hopefully recognize um the great negative impact that that had upon the Christian faith. No one is born into Christianity. Christianity dies when its people think it is genetically passed on.

Look at Europe good evidence. Um and so the rise of sacralism resulted in um severe degradations of the Christian experience and Christian faith. It also had tremendous theological ramifications. And just as the Jews used their political clout at the beginning to persecute Christians now the tables are reversed and now the church unnaturally due to its relationship with and I'm using the church here very generally gotta understand one of the greatest problems here is that we talk about the church.

And we're talking about either institutional church the external church. Are we talking about the true church. Are we talking about the invisible church. Are we talking about the church in its local expression.

It's it's a term that unfortunately you have to define each of your uses of it or it can it can be very very confusing. Um but the church the external church the organizational church now that it has political power itself those feelings of animosity toward the Jews become amplified and you end up with the quotations that no one disputes exist.

You have the situation with someone like Ambrose. And my concern here is is church history is a subject that can be extremely easily abused. Um I have a long history of for example criticizing the late Dave Hunt for his exceptionally surface level uh criticisms of people like Augustine.

It's so easy for us to sit here today and look back and see differences uh in what people said and did in the past in comparison to what I consider to be strict biblical orthodoxy today. And instead of asking why instead of asking what was meant instead of asking what what was the controversy this person was involved in.

It's just dismiss them. They're they're they're just a bunch of heretics. Now once you have state church-ism you do have a lot of people masquerading as Christians who are not Christians. I can't look into somebody's heart but the same time I recognize that man I hope 500 years from now or a thousand years from now or 2 ,000 years from now if the Lord were to tarry that long that if someone looks back at my puny efforts I will be judged for the context in which I lived not on the basis of where they are 2 ,000 years from now which may or may not be progressed beyond where we are now.

I would say there there are ways in which we have progressed farther than those in the ancient world. But I fully reject the idea that just because we are at a later period of time means that we are ahead that we've advanced.

I think there are many ways in which we have regressed beyond those the ancient world. So uh this whole concept of sacralism begins to develop that I've warned many many times you you don't look at history and find these lists where there's dates you know this developed on this date and this came.

That's not how history works. I mean you know today things are happening really really really fast but still you can't say gay marriage started on such and such a date it it's obviously the confluence of all sorts of degradations and profanings of of godly institutions and so on so forth has led as a process to this and things are happening far faster today than they could ever happen in the past just simply because of communication just simply because of communication.

So when you see those lists and say well this happened this and that happened. No no no there's always it's it's a it's multiple factors coming together and they might come together and almost cause something to happen.

And then they then they separate out. Well and it's later on something happens that happened with the reformation for example um sacralism develops over time it reaches its height during the medieval period.

Um after the papacy recovers from the pornocracy. Uh you've got innocent and isn't the third and and boniface and people like that. And within the papacy especially you have becoming absolutely established as a given a state church detestation of the jews.

And that's simply the context in which the reformation took place. So the book and the film are correct in so far as they state that the reformers did not address this issue directly. Now it you know i'll also give it uh credit for i mean the film was a little creepy.

Okay see the front of the book there's front of the book. See there's the guy derrick frank is walking through a door there and as a there's a light. This is a direct ripoff of the matrix. Okay i think if the film does real they're gonna get sued.

Um because i don't know if he's neo or if he's the architect um he's one of them because once he gets into this room and he's got this glowing key he takes off his neo type outfit and now he's dressed all in white and everything's glowing.

And all the guest people that make little speeches are standing in light and they're glowing with like satin pants on toward the end. It was it was like okay all right. Woohoo. But clearly stealing straight from the matrix you know i mean i i have a feeling if we broke into derrick frank's house and then in the basement there's there's a bunch of matrix stuff you know full size life size things anyway it was it was a lot on that on that level.

But um they did rightly. Anyway sorry for that slight uh stepping out of the story there rightly point out for example luther that when luther started oh yeah spoiler alert spoiler. Yeah there's lots of spoilers here guys trust me what are you surprised by that.

I'm gonna tell you what it was all about. Um when luther first addresses the issue of jews he's extremely conciliatory and evangelistic and kind and uh and and that's that's luther up until 1525 um the movie didn't talk about it but it's pretty obvious what happened.

I've said many times there are many luthers and um the biggest division i see is is between 15 pre 1525 and post 1525. Well obviously conversion. But as far as protestant luther is concerned and the peasants revolt in 1525 completely changed luther and changed his view of this wickow prophets were relevant to.

I don't have time to get into this all this right now. But um there was a a major paradigm shift in his thinking and certainly by the end of his life um he is uh vilely opposed to the jewish people. But there's nothing luther said that had not been said before him with the institutional approval of the papacy.

It was just that's what the culture was. And it was a sacral culture. Remember one of the issues that brought this about was if you live in city x the idea that you can have multiple religions living in city x was not considered to be appropriate and hadn't been for a thousand years.

If you lived in stuttgart then you had to be a catholic and the jews had always been considered to be a scandal on that level. Once you had what sacralism once you had a state church. Now obviously the reformation laid the seeds of destruction of sacralism.

There's no question about it. And i sometimes hear roman catholics going see how the process of reformation led to all the rest of stuff. Uh yeah in the sense of overthrowing the wild-eyed corrupt disgusting papacy's control over everything.

I guess you think that was better or something. But anyway um that subject then does not become central for most of the reformers. Now there there are some exceptions. Um martin bucer uh you know the free city there that's going to end up leading that direction that the swiss cantons eventually more at a much earlier point in time you're going to see the breaking down of of strict sacralism along those lines.

But it is not a focus of calvin. And it's it's one of the one of my big criticisms. Let me just mention another criticism real quickly before i go on this book would not be acceptable as a project for a sophomore in high school in any class i've ever taught and i have taught from high school through graduate level.

I would fail this book. I would not accept it. It would not be submitted. If it was submitted it would be given an f immediately. And there is no defense for this. This is a published work. Don't tell me.

Oh it's just that's just popular. So what blogs are popular. You still footnote them. Right. Just turn to the back. First of all it's a puff piece. I mean it's uh 100 and uh 121 pages. Uh as you can tell uh large print etc etc.

Footnotes. The footnotes in the back. You know references. Well there there there are biblical references. But every reference to a book where a quotation has been given is for example uh here's the section on calvin that i was referring to um john calvin responses to questions and objections of a certain jew.

That's it. Next footnote john calvin commentary on the epistle of paul to the romans. That's it. Now i don't mind. If you want to do some of the modern stuff where you don't necessarily worry about for example place of publication it'd be nice to know the the edition who published it.

It's always important to know when it was published. But just down right on the bottom level you've got to put the page number. Hello. No page numbers. Never never. Not a thing. No page numbers. John knox quoted john t mcneil the history and character of calvinism.

Would it have killed you to put a page number there. You can't check these out. You can't find them. Failure. Wow. I how there was. No there were no editors available to go. Excuse me. Hello. I couldn't have i couldn't get away with that.

And i'm glad i couldn't i wouldn't want to. It's embarrassing total failure that. That's what i melted down about yesterday on facebook. As soon as i got this thing i just i was about to stick it in my in my bag.

Just take it home. It's gonna watch it. And i just started looking through it. And i just happened to turn to calvin's view on page 12 and 13. So i started reading it. I said okay there's two quotations from calvin that are anti-jewish two.

You would think with the massive amount of material that calvin wrote you'd have a whole lot more than that. But they got two and so i oh okay number 10. I look at them and that's when i start looking through the whole thing.

I go embarrassing. Absolutely positively. Embarrassing. But i think there's a reason for it. I think there's a reason for it. But i'll get that i'll get to that in a moment. I'm sorry so much to talk about here.

And uh i've already spent i was only gonna spend first half hour. Sorry about that. Um what led to the eventual destruction of this kind of vile culturally inculcated hatred of judaism. The reformation did not roam.

The reformation did wasn't the first generation. But the reformation did. Um i don't think there's any question about that. But so so there is no question of about the institutional sacral sacrally established.

And especially when you start looking at the inquisitions what happened with the inquisition with the crusades all that stuff. Um that kind of of anti-jewish rhetoric was very common and anybody who studied church history knows it knows it.

Why the Book and Film Misuse Church History

Now here's the real problem with this entire film and book. Well here let me i illustrated it in my facebook post yesterday after quoting two negative statements from calvin on jews same paragraph. No break no argumentation to establish that this is related logically theologically historically or anything else.

And when commenting in romans 11 26 about and so all israel shall be saved he had dogmatically asserted that quote the israel of god is what paul calls the church end quote. So in the film what they do is um they have calvin who's played by kevin sorbo.

Sorbo sorbo sorbo. Yes kevin sorbo. What he played before. Who was he. Hercules. Okay so i have hercules. They have hercules. Say this. The israel of god is what paul calls the church. Okay. The whole thesis of this book is we need to repent of holding to a biblical view of the church in israel because all this nastiness all this anti-semitism is the direct logical demand and result of recognizing what seems really obvious to me.

I mean if you look at the nature of the new covenant you look at you look at it just so seems so obvious to me that we're the true circumcision faith in abraham the only ones who are the true children of abraham or of the faith etc etc.

I mean there's just so much there. Um and yet the whole idea is if you hold to and the book did a little bit more in the film. I mean the book and the film pretty much just each other. Um but they did.

They talked about replacement theology supersessionism and fulfillment theology all of which are things that are part of the great deception of satan. This is the see. This is all based on derrick frank.

Well i should have written all this down. Um derrick frank's dramatic journey of unearthing the great deception which is just simply a theological position started on a flight to israel in 1980. He was praying that god would send his future wife to sit in the seat next to him.

Oh come on. Didn't you try that only right toward the end right huh. And was keenly anticipating what god might do. But instead of a beautiful young woman a jewish boy sat down next to him and he spent the entire flight feeling bewildered watching the boy play with a rubik's cube.

Every so often the boy would take the whole thing apart and reassemble it in its original form. As derrick descended from the plane he felt the lord say. Quote. I guess this should be in the 28th book in the new testament.

Your first love must be for my people who struggle with a puzzle they cannot solve. End. Quote. This started derrick's quest for revelation inspired over two decades by visions words of knowledge and study as he gradually notice what comes last.

Unfortunately as he gradually uncovered one of the greatest deceptions of all time the conspiracy to cover up the church's true relationship with israel. Um i likened having to deal with this subject to having to deal with gail ripplinger.

Ga ripplinger. Remember that's what was on the book initially ga ripplinger which she herself interpreted as god and ripplinger yep that's who wrote the book was god and ripplinger. And when i challenged her on her acrostic algebra where throughout the book she called the new american standard bible nasb which is its official acronym.

But in acrostic algebra she wrote it nasv because that was her way to make the algebra work. And so i asked her a question um why did you call it nasb throughout the book and nasv while doing acrostic algebra remember what her answer was.

Because that's what god calls it. Once you're dealing with folks who start with visions and revelations and then put study at the end it should not surprise me that there is never never in the book or the film an accurate meaningful historical theologically researched footnoted um definition of any of the various views in regards to the relationship of the church in israel.

Never is there a discussion of the remnant the key issue to the interpretation of romans 9 10 11. Uh doesn't just poof doesn't even appear anywhere irresponsible to put something like this out if you will not accurately define your terms irresponsible.

How much money went into this. What could have been done with that money to actually promote meaningful theology and even meaningful evangelism amongst the jews anyway you cannot argue with people who begin by saying well the lord told me this guy had been seeing this vision.

And when he visited geneva it's saint pierre's that's what it is. That's why he's so focused on calvin and stuff. And kevin sorbo's really really bad calvin beard. Oh that was oh that was ugly. That was really bad.

Um you you just you can't argue with this. Because what's the standard by which you're you're to test this once someone is my revelation how do you argue with that. Well you argue with it because he's claiming it's consistent with the bible.

So you use the bible as your final authority. But i have argued more than once that this form of looking for revelations and visions and things like that is a fundamental denial of sola scriptura. It's a fundamental denial of sola scriptura.

So we really don't have the same foundation to stand upon to uh to discuss these things. But i was looking for will there be a meaningful definition of what any of these terms supersessionism anything.

Uh kofi just said my inner professor is so not amused right now. He on the other hand of dying with laughter. Yes well sorry um never in the book never in the film is the is the very issue of this alleged satanic deception accurately defined that's the tragedy.

It's identified as a satanic deception. And by isolating you know you you have you have hillary of poitier you have these just laughably bad presentations of these early church writers who said terrible things about jews.

We won't mention the fact that some of them were martyrs for the faith won't mention some of the fact that they live their lives frequently on the run persecution etc etc. This is what concerns me. So many people today are so ignorant of history.

And that's one of the reasons i was i i think i was in new york when something came up online about this. Um and that's what i said. Well i'm gonna have to watch this thing. Could someone send it to me.

And i want to thank michael brown for sending it to me. That's how that's. That's the whole reason that i have it. He may not be happy now that you sent it to me. But he sent it to me. And i'm giving you an honest review of it.

Um was because people were starting to write to me. Oh what did why calvin say this. Or why calvin say that if you there were a couple places i was at least somewhat thankful that in a couple of places it was acknowledged that this was pretty much the whole culture by the time of the reformation.

Okay that was somewhat good. I would have liked to have seen some of the bazillion uh sources you could have derived in regards to the papacy would have been nice. But anyway but you stick hillary there.

I wish hillary hadn't said a number of things. This is this is where again it's so easy for moderns to look back at the early church and just go do we recognize that hillary said bad things about the jews.

Yes yes that had already become that that split had become just a part of what it was to defend the christian faith in that day against those nasty jews. He was wrong about that. But to present them as these pompous dressed up without looking at the rest of what they did and their context and where they were.

And it's just such a it's not how you do history. It's it's how you sell books but it's not how you do history. It's not how you do history. And i think of how for example someone like hillary was so important in maintaining orthodoxy in regards to the deity of christ.

Now look the early church is a grab bag. And there are certain people i just don't like in church history. You know i don't like clement of alexandria. But i can't see into his heart. I mean if you were to ask for some candidates to someone i'd go maybe one of them.

But i can't see into their hearts. And i think it's pretty silly for any of us to assume that we can. So part of my really negative reaction to all of this is the same reason i had such a negative reaction to dave hunt's playing around with church history is it's because it's just that you're playing around with church history.

You're not. You're not really doing church history. You're abusing church history all to make a theological point and then without ever accurately defining the position you're saying is satan's great deception.

Let alone meaningfully interacting with any of the scholarly material. But that's because this isn't scholarly. It's just not it's visions. It's just a bunch of disjointed visions. How about dealing with some of the meaningful in-depth scholarship.

That's out there. Do you dealing with the israel of god. Dealing with uh you know i've i've listened to lengthy lectures uh by reformed baptist guys sam waldron's got stuff out on the relationship of church in israel and romans 11.

And and don't pretend it's simple. It's so easy to just demonize the other side. That's what you're doing here. I i i'm now having conversations with folks where if eschatology comes up or you say anything about holding to the majority view of church history.

They're like oh you're one of them. Oh oh. And not because they have any serious understanding of where we're coming from or why we believe it. But because of this kind of stuff it's a great deception.

So i guess i'm the great deceiver now right. Because i hold and this whole. And then then what happens. The reason i started off with the ed young senior clip is in the vast majority of instances on this subject the people pushing this stuff have an emotional attachment that just all of a sudden makes them poof go off rather than deal with this like you would normally deal with any type of meaningful theological disagreement.

And so you can't even talk about it without just starting a war. And i've seen it in the facebook comments. I've seen comments just on the stuff on both sides. They were just like what are you people talking about.

Um it's very disappointing. So took the time to watch it took the time to read it. Um it would be nice to have you know meaningful discussion but unfortunately it's almost always all emotions. Let me just state one thing.

Absolutely a there is no question of the existence of established anti-jewish theology within primarily the sacral church. And when the sacral church broke down much of that did too. There's no question about that.

There never has been a question about that. I if i had had more time i was going to grab some of the standard history texts. Read lotterette read schaff read gonzalez. It's there. It's not hidden. I think for some people it should be about the only thing being discussed in that text.

If that's not the only thing being discussed then you've missed the boat. But it's there. That's not even a question. No one's denying that no one can deny that. But what i challenge and what i've said in the facebook post must be challenged is the idea that to hold to what i believe the biblical view is that the promises that we see given to the people of god are still for the people of god.

The modern state of israel is not the people of god. The modern state of israel is primarily filled with unbelievers even in judaism for crying out loud if you cannot separate your biblical exegesis from your strong feelings about politics.

And man i see this on both sides. It's horrible what happened in israel within the past 24 hours. Here is a nation that has every right to exist that does not want to beat up on its neighbors. And it is under constant attack.

And yet i see stuff man on facebook i've followed a few folks i've had interactions with that are muslims. Oh wow. The insanity. And it's insanity. It is in sane evil hatred of anything has to do with israel.

Oh the idea is if you recognize that then you must turn around become a christian zionist. And everything israel does is great. And these are the people of god. No it's not. It's a secular nation. It's a secular nation.

Oh but it was miraculous how it came about. Really really you don't do exegesis on the basis of the new york times. Okay. You let the new testament say what the new testament says. And if you want to be a child of abraham today there's only one way of doing it by faith in jesus christ.

Because the true children of abraham to whom the promises were given have always been those who have had faith. And to have faith today means to have faith in the messiah. That is not some type of radical crazy satanic deception.

And i can hold that position without becoming an anti-semite. I can hold that position and still pray for the jewish people. I can hold that position and still witness the jewish people. And unfortunately what this book book does and people who are promoting that book is if you hold his position you're an anti-semite.

That's bigotry. Stop it stop it stop it and drop it. You're getting nowhere with it. Get nowhere with it's bigotry. It's wrong unless you can actually argue it. Oh but there have been people. Look what the nazis did.

You're calling them christians. Hello. Absurdity. Absolute positive absurdity. I've not heard anyone yet do anything more than to say well if you don't believe that the jews are god's people today then someone might do this.

You think that's reasonable thinking. You think that's rational. Haven't we heard that before. Remember the debate i did with the oneness guy years ago. You believe in the trinity. You might burn us. You believe in salvation by grace through faith.

You might live like the devil. You believe in the resurrection. You might live like the devil too because jesus takes your sin. You see any truth can be abused. Any truth every truth has been abused at some point in time.

That's not how you do exegesis. That's not how you do exegesis. So there you go. Undoubtedly we'll start all sorts of twitter wars and facebook explosions and all the rest that stuff. And sometimes i could like just turn all that stuff off.

But uh it was there it needed to be discussed. And um so there there we go there we go. Um where are we here. I wanted to there it is. I wanted to then. Um oh and i was going to queue this up. Oh brats and frats and rats brats.

And um you know what live program we're still going to do it. I wanted to have this queued up. Do forgive me uh but i need to go to youtube here real quick. And uh unfortunately i have to put in the uh address.

So let's have some uh music here. La la la la la la youtube .com. Yeah i know that watch question. Wath will not do it. Wath will not will not get that going. Uh video equals. Now you can all find it this way too.

E capital w i capital y 32 bb 2. I hope that's capital k 8. Got it all right. You. Uh no um i'm probably not feeding that to you. Am i yes there it is right now working on it working on it still working on it.