Matt Slick Live: November 19, 2024

The following program is recorded content created by The Truth Network.

It's Matt Slick Live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at calm .org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live for answers.

Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877 -207 -2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Opening the Show and Upcoming Debate

Welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick. You're listening to Matt Slick Live. Today's date is November 19, 2024. If you want to call me, the number is 877 -207 -2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call.

Also, you can, if interested, you can send me an e-mail. Please e-mail me. I like them. You can send an e-mail to info at calm .org. Info at calm .org. And in the subject line, please put in radio comment or radio question.

And then we can get to it sometime when we're slow. And usually I try to get them on Fridays. Today's date is Tuesday. Wow. It felt like a Thursday to me. I don't know why. Man, it felt like a Thursday to me.

So, it tells you right there. Okay. I think that's it. We had a caller coming in. We kind of lost them. And we'll see what happens there. I've got a debate I'm supposed to be in on unconditional election on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

And I still don't know where it's supposed to be, what the venue is, what arrangements there are. I really don't know. And I've got to figure it out. So, an unconditional election. Does God predestine people based on or elect them for salvation based on foreseeing whatever it is in them or not?

That's basically what it comes down to. So, we'll begin with that. We'll see if it's going to happen. I'm assuming it's going to. I don't have any problem with it. I just need to know details. And one thing's for sure.

I know who it's against. I know the group. And I will not trust their moderators. If they have a moderator, I won't trust them. And we'll see. All right. Let's get on the air with Jan from North Carolina.

Jan, welcome. You're on the air.

Why the Risen Jesus Was Not Immediately Recognized

Hey, Mr. Slick, I call you a lot when I don't get the right answer from my pastor or an answer that doesn't seem complete. This may be a simple question. It's a simplistic question. But why, when Jesus was resurrected, there was three instances when they didn't recognize him.

Why were they not recognizing him? Mary thought he was the gardener. He walked with him on the road and they didn't recognize him. Why?

In Luke 24, I think around around verse 10, I'm not sure. It says their eyes were beheld from seeing him. And it wasn't until after the bread that that they recognized him. There's something to breaking the bread in the fellowship.

All right. That's one thing. The other thing is, if you go to John 20, 25 to 28, you'll see that Jesus retained the crucifixion wounds. Is, you know, put your hand into my side, put your finger into my hand, he said to Thomas.

All right. That means he retained the crucifixion wounds. And part of them were being beaten about the face.

He was beaten.

So his beard was plucked out and beaten, which means you're going to swell. So here's the thing.

And plus, he's not going to look the same without his beard. But what about the voice is what I was thinking.

Well, his voice could have been affected, too, by physical trauma. When I was 19, I was in a very serious car accident and almost lost my life. And I took two years to recover. And I still remember to this day, I had a face injury.

And that's my friends. When I tell them this, I go, well, that explains a lot. So I had this injury to my face and my face swelled up.

Right.

I can still, to this second, see one of my friends go in the door of the hospital, into my room, look at me and then keep going because he didn't recognize me.

OK.

So you're saying a lot of it was the scourging, the scourging and the plucking of the beard and things like that. But then they didn't recognize his voice. But that could have been a change as well, you're saying.

It could have been. There's an effect. You'd think they'd recognize his voice. But also, you've got to understand, people can sound similar to other people. Of course, my voice is pretty distinct. But a lot of people have similar voices.

I guess they weren't expecting to see him either. They weren't expecting him. I mean, they were in a way but didn't know what to expect as far as him returning.

Yeah.

All right.

And so in the morning, he's showing himself to them in the early morning.

There's not much light.

So his voice could have echoed off of something. They could have been distraught, not hearing him right. There's all kinds of variables in there. But that would explain why he didn't recognize you.

I guess Mary was very consumed with grief when she thought he might have been the gardener. Where have you borne him? Tell me and I'll go and get him kind of thing.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. OK.

Well, that makes perfect sense. I always like to get the answer. When the preacher or deacon tells me, I just don't know, then I'm going to call you. So that's the way it's going to be.

Well, you're welcome.

And I appreciate it.

And I do appreciate it.

OK.

Your answers do clear me up on a lot of things. I have more questions. I will let you go. That was my question for today. I held yesterday as long as I could. But I couldn't stay with you. So anyway, but thank you again, Mr. Slick.

And I'll be speaking to you again soon.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Bye bye.

All right.

Now, a slight correction. It's not Luke 24 10, but 24 16. And their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. Now, what's interesting about Luke 24. This is the road he's walking with the disciples. They didn't recognize him because their eyes will be held or prevented from recognizing him.

That's what it says in Luke 24 16. It wasn't until after he broke bread that they recognized him. Now, crucifixion wounds are not in the palms. That's a common misnomer. They're in the wrist. Because you put them between the two bones in the forearm there, and it'll stay.

You put the nails in the palms, it'll rip out when there's a lot of weight on them. It'll rip through your skin. And so they put them in the wrist area. And they didn't have a word for wrist. Wrist and hand were considered the same thing.

They had one word for both. That's just what it was in the culture. So think about this. He's wearing a long robe, which would cover the wrists when you break bread. It's not like us. We undo the twisty, and then we reach in and get a couple slices of bread.

Don't think like that. Think a mound of bread the size of a dinner plate. It might be two, three, four inches high. That kind of an idea, a mound. And then you had to rip it in half. So when you rip it in half, you use your strength.

You would take your hands and tear. And some think that maybe at that point is when the garment of his wrists, over his wrists, moved down. And then they saw the holes, and they recognized them. So that's one of the possibilities.

John’s Tribulation in Revelation

Let's get to Tom from Florida. Tom, welcome here on the air.

Hi. Thank you, Matt, for taking my question. Thank you for your show and your relentless commitment to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. So many appreciate that. Please, a quick question. In Revelation 1 -9, you may recall or know that John, the apostle, refers to himself as a partaker in the tribulation.

And I emphasize the article because in the King James, it's partaker in tribulation. And I think that's relevant to the question, which is, what tribulation do you believe John is referring to?

It does say in the Greek, it says, ante flipse. So it is saying in the tribulation.

So the word is Greek.

Now, the tribulation that they're going through at the time, some think that depending on when Revelation was written, 60s, 70s, there was a persecution going on from the empire. Caesaropapism was in view.

Caesaropapism is worship of the emperor. Nero in the 60s was killing Christians. And it didn't just end with Nero. It continued on afterwards. So it's probably a reference to that kind of a persecution in the first century.

Because remember, he was exiled to an island because they couldn't kill him.

So it's likely then, depending on the date of the writing, it was the 70 AD attack on Jerusalem in the temple.

Could be. It could be.

It just depends on when Revelation was written. Because if it was written in 65 AD, if, I'm not saying it was, then the temple thing wouldn't have been an issue. If it was written afterwards, then it could have been an issue.

Because, you know, Rome came in and did a lot of butt kicking. So, you know, it's all possible. I hold to a dating a little after the 60s in the book of Revelation. But I've not really studied it extensively.

So that's what I hold to.

Just one last point on that, if I may. Could it be he's just referring to the general tribulations of the Christian life?

Yes.

And his particular suffering.

Yes.

Now it says, I, John, the brother of Philip, in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God testimony. So if he's on, here's the thing.

If he's on Patmos, there's no persecution coming direct.

Yeah.

It would be indirect. So he might have been referring to something in the past. Or there might have been something going on generically. And the people were afraid of him enough to try to boil them in oil.

Legend goes, and it didn't work. They go, OK, let's not mess with him anymore. Put him out over there. And it's still a form of persecution. So it could be an extended issue there.

Yeah. Yes.

OK, thank you. Do you have time for another revelation question?

Sure. Sure. Thanks.

As you well know, there's so much imagery, symbolism in the book with different figures and different descriptions. And as we seek to interpret that, it sometimes can be, you know, it's kind of mind boggling.

And I heard a theory, I'm just interested in your opinion, that one reason John chose to write in such symbolic language is because it was the best way that he could get the letters out and cast those who are persecuting him, who would if he wrote straight up, if you will.

And very clearly, it would be about a topic that would have been, if you will, censored or the mail destroyed. And therefore, the imagery made it uninterpretable by those who would destroy his mail, if you will.

I'm making that question clear. Just wonder if you had an opinion on that.

Well, obviously, he wrote because God inspired him to do it that way. The practical reason could be that exactly. Because I think there's something to it. John was restricted. He wrote Revelation on Patmos.

So it's going to get out. I think it's a good reason that he would write in code. And if you knew the Bible, you knew it, this would make, oh, I get that.

I get that. I get that.

So I think it's a good viable theory.

Well, thanks. And thanks again for all you do. Hope you have a good night and a good show.

You too.

God bless, man. Thanks.

Appreciate it. All right.

Bye-bye.

Bye-bye. All right.

No Private Interpretation in 2 Peter 1

Next longest waiting is Ebenezer. Ebenezer, welcome. You are on the air.

Hey, Matt. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Yeah.

So I was talking to Orthodox Earth. And they brought up, they alluded to 2 Peter 1, 20 and 21. About a private interpretation. How they said Peter condemns private interpretation. And that, you know, the church's interpretation, I guess, is superior.

I guess.

Can you actually do that for me? Because I kind of don't understand.

It's very easy. It's really easy. Just read it. It does not say that no scripture is of one's own interpretation. What it says is no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. The issue is prophecy, not scripture.

It's that simple. For 2 Peter 1, 20, for know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture, the subject is prophecy, is a matter of one's own interpretation. So when the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox take this verse, and they misapply it like that, I have to correct them.

I say, what does it say is not of a private interpretation? It says prophecy, not scripture. You can't even read the Bible right. And now you want to tell us what to believe? Got that wrong. Hold on, buddy.

We've got a break.

Okay, so hold on.

Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages.

Please stay tuned.

It's Matt Slick live. Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody.

Welcome back to the show. Don't know if Ebeneezer is still on. We'll give him a little bit here. And if not, we'll move on. Because I did answer the question, don't know if he's going to hang in there.

Oh, there he is. Okay, let's see. Let's get back on.

You still there?

So you said, yeah, yeah, I'm here. So you said with regards to prophecy, right?

Yeah.

So, okay. So that will kind of, I guess, refute the whole patristic authority thing, right?

Yes.

It's very simple. You see, I just asked them, and I already told you before the break, I just say, what does it say? No prophecy of scripture. That's what it says is of one's own interpretation. That's it.

So why do you, and I say to them, why do you misread it and make it say what it doesn't.

Say?

It doesn't say no scripture is of one's own interpretation, but no prophecy of scripture. You got that wrong. You can't even get that right. And it's right before you. And yet you want to tell us that your church is a true church.

Did they tell you that this is what this verse means when it can't even get it right?

You see?

So what does that mean by prophecy of scripture?

Prophecy is a proclamation and or forth telling of the future.

Oh, like a prophet.

Right.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Oh, so like when you read, um, when you read, um, like a Jose or, you know,.

Then they, what they'll do, they could do all kinds of stuff.

Okay.

They could say, well, that just means the whole Bible. See, how do you know that's what it means? Now, are you giving me your own interpretation now? They're stuck.

Oh yeah.

I got that.

I got that from them too.

Yeah.

So the word is prophetic.

Okay.

Prophetic.

All right. Now it's used in 19 places in the Bible. And like the first one is Matthew 13, 14, for example, in their case, the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled. Uh, and it says, uh, in Romans 12, six, the gifts charismatic gifts of prophecy, according to the portion of his faith.

Uh, and it goes on Thessalonians do not despise prophetic utterances. And according to the prophecies revealed made concerning you, that's first Timothy one 18. So it has a bit of a semantic domain, but it generally means a specifically more specifically, we can say what is going after is a prophetic word over someone or proclamation.

So the prophecy of scripture are those things that were prouf prophetic, not just scripture. So I just tell them that you can't even get that right.

And you have those.

So what about when they, you know, bring up like, Oh, um, authority to forgive sins and, and stuff like that. Like, um, like, and, and cause I, I told him like, I don't, we all have, we all as Christians have that power, uh, like binding and losing.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. And before we get to that, I'm going to tell you, the next verse has no prop of second Peter one 21 for no prophecy. It's the same Greek word was ever made by an act of human will, but by men moved by the Holy spirit.

So this prophecy was talking about is the prophetic proclamation, predicting that what's going on. So they just can't, they can't get that right. As far as authority goes, what they want to do is go to things like Matthew 16, 18, for example.

Uh, Oh no, it's not 16, 18, um, 19.

Yeah. John 20, 23.

Yeah.

John 20, 23. He'll go there instead because there's several that are basically the same. He says, if you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.

So what they'll do is they'll still listen to them. Read it. See, can you read it to me? What they're going to do is say, if you forgive the sins of any, their sins are forgiven present tense. If you forgive, they are forgiven present tense.

That's not how it is in the Greek, in the Greek, a phone tie is what's a, it's called the perfect passive indicative. Let me explain what's going on. So we have in English and in Greek, we have present past.

We have perfect. We have pluperfect.

Okay.

I'll explain them. Present is I walk, uh, past. I walked. Perfect is past action. Continuing in the past and into the present. I have been walking. I have been walking, which means I was, and I still am.

Pluperfect is past action completed in the past. I had been walking, which means you're no longer are. I was, I had been. So that means I'm done. But if you say I have been walking, well, then you're still walking.

That's what's going on in the Greek. It's perfect tense and it's passive, which means they're receiving the action.

All right.

So it says, if you forgive that's present tense, there's since have been forgiven. Now what's going on is, uh, Jesus saying that they are pronouncing forgiving forgiveness. And it's what you got to ask them.

They're pronouncing forgiveness and that's why they're forgiven.

That's good.

Good ask. Is that why they're forgiven? Because your church's authority proclaims a forgiveness on somebody. That's why they're forgiven. They might say yes, because they have the authority. Then ask this question.

Okay.

So if one of your priests forgive someone's sins, is God obligated to follow suit and forgive them also? Is he supposed to do that because of your authority to do it? That's a question that's tough for them to answer.

Because now what they're saying is their authority gets God to do what they want. But they can't have that.

So like, Oh wow. So like you're pretty much playing God in the place of playing God.

There you go. Their authority at their church has the authority. And so there's their church can forgive sin. So therefore they're forgiven because they say so. I asked him, well, then does that mean God's got to follow suit and do what you guys say?

So I go back to the text and I says, it's like this. If your sin, you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven. They've already been forgiven. It's like saying already, but the word's not there in the Greek.

I'm trying to get this across. You see their sins are forgiven. The disciples and Christians can say your sins are forgiven. If you lead someone to the Lord and they trust in Christ, all of their sins are forgiven and you can say your sins are forgiven.

Now here's another thing about this text. If you forgive the sins of any, if you forgive, this is an Aorist active subjunctive. If in this issue you were to do this, it's already done. So Aorist means past tense and active means you're performing the action.

So if you forgave the sins of any, it's not present tense. It's past tense.

If you forgave,.

That's what an Aorist is. If you forgave the sins, their sins have been forgiven.

Whoa, whoa.

But they, they translated into the English in the present tense. And there's rules and things like this, but it gets difficult. Sometimes you talk to a Greek expert at this point and say, I got questions to get more particulars, but here's some other verses at how this renders it.

And the ESV says, if you forgive a King James, whoever sins ye remit, if you forgive the sins of any, because the King James RSV, if you forgive the sins, if you forgive the sins, LEB NIV, if you forgive.

So it goes on. They're translating the Aorist into the English present tense. Now, why do they do that? And that's the question I'd like to ask a Greek expert. Anyway, hope that helps. Does it help buddy?

I mean, it's a lot to take in.

All right, man. We'll call back. We can go over it some more if you want. All right.

God bless buddy.

Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned.

Stay tuned.

It's Matt Slick live. Taking your calls at 877 -207 -2276. Here's Matt Slick.

The Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit in John 21 and John 14

Everybody, welcome back to the show. Let's get on with Elijah from Pennsylvania.

Welcome brother.

You're on the air.

Hey Matt, I wanted to ask, do you think that John 21, 17 is a good verse to, to approve the deity of Christ? Because in that verse, Peter says that Jesus knows all things, but only God can know all things, right?

That's a good verse that I use to demonstrate the knowledge of Christ. John 21, 17. So I think it's a good verse to use in support of his deity. It's not a proof text, but it's a supporting verse. Now, one of the things that I'll bring up about this verse is, I'll say to them, the critics, because they'll say, Jesus didn't know everything.

You know, I didn't know the hour of his return. And I go and explain the, the cultural context of the idiomatic phraseology that he was using. But I say, John 21, 17, he says that Peter says, you know all things Lord.

And I said, and here's what's critical. Jesus did not correct him.

He didn't correct him.

So, all right.

Yeah.

Also, what do you think about this argument? Because my uncle is a Muslim, and I want to know if you ever heard this argument before. So he says that he believes that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel, because he says that the Greek proves that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel.

And I never heard that argument before. Have you ever heard a Muslim say that before?

Yes, and it doesn't work. You go to John 14, 26. And, 14, 26 or 15, 26, so both of them say, like I said, a helper comes to send you the Father, another helper is what I'm looking for. Because in the Greek, come on, where are you?

I will send another helper. Oh, come on, you slimeball. And the word in Greek is, let me find the exact verse. I thought I knew right where it was, but I don't. Bible. Send another helper.

Okay.

I need to find the exact verse on 14, 16. I should have known that one.

So, here we go.

So this is what it says. I will ask the Father, and He will give you another helper. Now, the word another, there, is from alas. And in Greek, there's two words for another. One is alas, and one is heteros.

Heteros is another of a different kind. But alas is another of the same kind. I will ask the Father, He'll give you another helper of the same kind, that He'll be with you forever. You see, that's the angel Gabriel, which, there's nothing there that says that.

If that's the angel Gabriel, then why is that particular Greek word used to designate another of the same kind when you talk about Jesus and the Father in the context?

Okay? Alright?

Right, right.

Okay.

Yeah, that makes sense.

That's what you're saying.

Now, here, let me give you something that's worth doing. If you write this down, I can help you out really fast, okay?

You guys have some paper,.

You can ask him some questions.

Alright? You ready?

Yeah, I'm ready.

Okay, just write down the addresses, and then just listen, and I'll show you how to use these. In Surah 482 in the Quran, Surah 482, 4, 8, 2. It says, Do they not consider the Quran, had it been from other than Allah, they would surely find therein much discrepancy.

You show him that. So, if the Quran has any discrepancy, is it true or false? Because the Quran is saying, if there's discrepancy in it, it's false. Okay, now get him to admit that. Then you can do two things.

There's two places you can go. And one is Surah 86, 5 -7. And this will cause him to do research if he doesn't already know this issue. And I'll tell you what they generally say. This is what it says in Surah 86, 5 -7.

Now, let man but think from what he has created. He's created from a drop emitted, proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs. So, I'm gonna be careful how I discuss this particular issue related to coitus.

But it says a drop emitted proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs. That's what we're created from. So, the Quran is teaching a man's seed comes from his chest.

That's wrong.

What they'll generally do is they get in ridiculous explanations.

They'll say,.

Well, have you ever studied this stuff, Matt? Yes, I have. And they'll say, Well, you see, the stuff from the back area always goes down into the testes. And I'm like, you know, is this ridiculous? And I say, notice the word drop.

It's an emission. We know what that's talking about. And so, that's a problem for them. That's one of them. And I'll show you one more, okay? You ready? And this is a good one, too. Surah 4, verse 157.

Surah 4, verse 157. I'm going to read it to you. They said in boast, We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah. But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them.

And those who differ therein are full of doubt, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow for, of a surety they killed him not. So, this is what you do. You say, okay, in Surah 42, the Qur 'an has no discrepancy.

Okay, good, no discrepancies, good, okay. But in Surah 4, verse 157, it says, He wasn't crucified, but it was made to appear to them.

And you ask them,.

I mean, what was made to appear? The general response is, someone was made to look like Jesus who was crucified. This is what the tafsir teach, which is a commentary. It's a Muslim commentary. They say, it was made to look like him.

I've only read one tafsir that says they don't know. So, I'll ask the Muslim, nine times out of ten, they'll say, well, it was Allah who did this. Now, if he were to say that, you got him. If he says, I don't know,.

Well, then he doesn't know,.

He really can't do anything, okay? But you say, it was made to appear to them. And I tell people,.

I tell the Muslims,.

The tafsir I read say it was Allah who did this. Do you agree with the commentaries? Put a little pressure on them.

At any rate,.

So it was Allah who made it look like Jesus was crucified. Then Allah, by his own direct hand, deceived people. That means your God is a deceiver by his direct desire. Why would he, right there in the text, offer a contradiction?

He's saying Jesus was not crucified, but I'm going to make it look like he was.

That's what Allah did.

So why would he put a deception on people and be one responsible for Christianity's existence when Allah made it to deceive them in the first place? So this is the God you follow who's a deceiver?

Okay?

Yeah.

But if I were to bring that up, I'm pretty sure he would say, well, the God of the Bible does the same thing because I think he'll bring up, what is that? I can't remember. I think it's 2 Thessalonians where it says that God will send them strong delusion.

Yeah, he'll send a deluding influence upon them. There's two ways to deal with this. One is he sends an influence on them so they'll believe a lie. So he's allowing an influence to go upon people so that they will believe what's false.