Transcription
He says it's scripture. It's the scripture is the only thing that you can learn from and is useful for declaration of doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16. He openly says that openly, openly.
However, the same guy talks out of two sides of his mouth, says elsewhere that the whole thing is a grand mystery and no one knows about it. Only I know about it because I have a unique revelation. See the first five passages of Ephesians chapter 3.
People think the New Testament and Christianity is univocal. This is the biggest mistake you can make. The New Testament just contradicts itself. Forget about Tanakh over and over again.
Hi, I'm calling from um Detroit, Michigan, and I just want to know how Christians can believe in a just God and an all-loving God when they believe that Jesus is hidden through scripture in the Old Testament. It's as if Jesus is playing hide and seek. I mean, even the most used passage Isaiah 53 and verse 8 says, "the lamo for the transgressions of my people they were stricken." So it seems like Jesus is just playing hide-and-seek. He doesn't really want to be found and offer no logical reasons to be Christians and it's like God is playing with our eternity. Like how can they believe that God is just playing hide-and-seek with us? How can they believe such a thing? I just get so upset thinking about if Jesus were to be the Messiah and I go to hell for rejecting him. Why is it so confusing to find him? Why is it so hard? Shouldn't it be the easiest part of the Bible? Thank you.
Very well asked. That's our last question. But in Isaiah, we're told explicitly Hashem didn't come in in a place of hiding. He didn't say, "Seek me in vain." So, we're openly told in Tanakh that God's salvation plan is available to everyone. How, how could it be this? And you really will almost always when speaking to a Christian and ask him where is this whole thing that if you believe in Jesus you're saved, you don't believe in the Messiah, you go to hell, even Isaiah 53 doesn't say that, right? So always, and you hear my conversations with Christians that I'm interviewed, they say there's a picture, there's a typology, we see a type of Christ in the Old Testament. I If you want to test what I'm saying, go to YouTube and do a search on Christ in the Old Testament. And what you will find, I'm not going to name them, but they all doing this. They take stories in Tanakh, in the Hebrew Bible, and they said this is a type of Christ. This, they all do this. There's a guy, I'm not going to name him. He has like, I don't know, a 10 or 20 part series of all these types of CR, it's called this typology, he engages in this. I think his name is Winger, I forgot his name, anyway, he got a whole big thing and he got a huge YouTube channel and he goes on and on and on. And Joseph, you know, was rejected by his brother, that's Christ. All this is all Christ hidden in the festival. What, what a hidden schmidden? What is this? It says openly in Deuteronomy 29, "The secret things belong to the Lord, but that which has been revealed belongs to us and to our children forever, that we may keep all the words of this law openly." Openly. How could it be? How could it possibly be that God's salvation plan should be a complicated, convoluted plot that only scholars could figure out and only the only the top YouTubers in the world could explain? Really? Means salvation is not accessible to people who are not scholars. That's all very, very silly.
It it has to be something. If I truthfully, if I ask and Christian scholars will agree. Christians will, Christians who are very, very knowledgeable will agree. Ask a a pastor who's who knows his stuff. Ask him, "What percentage of your parishioners understand the doctrine of the Trinity?" If the man is honest, he'll say maybe 5%. If he's honest, he's honest, he'll say they almost have no clue. And it's striking that when Christians describe the doctrine of Trinity using some sort of metaphor of an egg or shallow yolk. Why? It's all they're always describing something that's a heresy in Christianity. Modalism. They go, "Can God incarnate and come in the form of a man." But but Jesus didn't know things. He didn't know the time of the end. Jesus says, "Uh, I only do the will of God, not as my will." He's asking God for all kinds of things. He humbled himself. Notorious, the bishop of Constantinople, came up with that. His idea that Jesus was of two minds is completely rejected by the church and Cyril of Alexandria convened the whole council just to destroy that.
It's interesting. It's interesting. Here's an interesting thought I had this week. I never said it before because um there's a thought that just came to me. All of the heresies in the church which the church sought to solve through ecumenical councils. The heretic is always more logical than the proto-orthodox. It's a very strange thing I just said. But you take the council Nicaea. So the Council of Nicaea, you have Arius, who is a theologian from Alexandria, who claimed that Jesus was a created being. He felt he was divine, but he was created. And Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and a deacon at the time, Athanasius, they held that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. Uh, so Alexander wins at the council in Nicaea and Arius, whose ideas are called Arian, with an I, not a Y, big difference. He was thrown out of, thrown out of time, but he was more logical to at least say that the son is created, was generated by the Father. That was the view of Tertullian. Notorious, who was the bishop of Constantinople, held that Jesus has two minds, and Cyril of Alexandria fought against it. The Council of Ephesus. Well, as it turns out, the guy he was exiled, he was, he, see, when I say he's more right, they're all wrong. Jesus, not the Messiah, not anything. But the, the problem is they're stuck with the New Testament. And because the doctrine of the Trinity is a later Christian invention, I never taught you this before. Because the doctrine of the Trinity is a later Christian accretion. It's an invention. The later Christian church fathers throughout the Patristic period, meaning the first 500 years of Christianity, they have to have the Trinity comport with the New Testament because they're stuck with the New Testament. And they're stuck with the Hebrew Bible. And therefore, they're all coming up with this kind of so Modalism, Sabellianism. So the argument of Modalism, which Tertullian fought against, is that Jesus and the Father are the same. They're just different modes. But the problem is that Jesus is talking to God and asking God and stuff and having long dialogues and asking God, "Why did you forsake me?" So it's, it's not Modalism is untenable. Sabellianism is untenable. So I'm teaching on something very strange, and that is that when you encounter all these councils, ecumenical councils of the church where they're trying to solve, they're almost always trying to solve an issue of the nature of Christ, the deity of Christ. The people who lose and who are crushed and therefore exiled, they were less wrong than the people who won because the people who won are going to stop Christ is means it's Alexandria, not Antiochian, meaning it's all one. It's all one. There's an absolute unity in the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son don't have the same knowledge. Out exiled. You got, you got it. I hope there's a little, a little, this is a little delicate.
So I, I'm just going back to uh the original question. It can't be that a 15-year-old girl does not have access to salvation, doesn't know the truth by just reading the plain text. Can't be. And what the hypothatic union, which is the highly, I'm using the word developed, which is usually a compliment. I don't mean it in a positive way. It was just invented. This this Greek thinking is it's complicated to go into, but it does not mean the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. They have distinct persons. They have a distinct hypostatic entity. The Father is not the Son, and he's not the Word, he's not the Logos. He's not. And the Son is not, is not the monarch, and only the Father could spirate the Holy Spirit. The Son did not, unless you're Roman Catholic. Believe me, the Orthodox Church, the second largest Christian denomination, and the Roman Catholic Church, the sec, the largest denomination, are killing each other over the filioque. Now, those of you who are scholars of this know what I'm talking about, and those who are not are going, "I can't believe this stuff." The Trinity is real, real, real, real idolatry. It's real avoidance. It's horrible. And the reason why there are some Jews who think maybe it's not because they don't understand it. They don't understand it. It's a, I'm using the word developed. Usually something is developed means it's better. It's improved. It's not. It's more grotesque. It's more revolting. But that's really what the Trinity is. And it's obscene. And it's that's why they called it's ultimately a mystery. It's not a mystery. The key that goes back to your answer. What happens? What happened is what Mark Twain, in my view, America's greatest writer, humorist. He was a brilliant writer. He said, "If you're telling the truth, you don't have to be clever because you don't have to keep track of all your lies." It's so simple. There's one Hashem. There's no other anid mulvado. There's nothing else. That's it. No being, person, all this is all garbage. It's nowhere in Tanakh.
But what you, so now the Christians play both ways. First they say there are hundreds of prophecies all pointed. You ask for the prophecy, the whole thing is scandalous. And then, and Paul incidentally says that you have to rely on Tanakh to know what's true. It says that openly. He says it's scripture. It's the scripture is the only thing that you can learn from and is useful for declaration of doctrine. In 2 Timothy 3:16, he openly says that openly, openly. However, the same guy, he talks out of two sides of his mouth, says elsewhere that the whole thing is a grand mystery and no one knows about it. Only I know about it because I have a unique revelation. See the first five passages of Ephesians chapter 3. See 1 Corinthians chapter 2, 7 and 8. He openly says, read the first two chapters of Galatians. Paul openly says that he has direct revelation that was given to him and it, he didn't get it from Jerusalem. It didn't come to him from the so-called pillars of the church. So you talk about a guy who speaks out of two sides of his mouth. On one side of his mouth, he says everything is from scripture, and on the other side of his mouth, it only comes from me. He says in 1 Corinthians 2:7 and 8 that if the people who crucified Jesus, they would have known the revelation I'm giving to you, this mystery I'm revealing to you, they would have never crucified the Lord of glory. That's what he says. So the whole Christian Bible is, people think the New Testament and Christianity is univocal. This is the biggest mistake you can make. The New Testament just contradicts itself. Forget about Tanakh over and over again.
And because they're making stuff up and adding on layers, accretions of theology as time went on, and then as you interpolate, insert a new accretion, a new idea, a new doctrine, a new Christology, you, you had to go back to the New Testament, say, "How does it work out?" Sometimes, I'll end with this. Sometimes um scribes would go back to the Christian Bible and interpolate passages in their own Bible. They forget Tanakh. They would corrupt the Christian Bible in order to conform with later Christologies, like the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not found in the Christian Bible. So what did they, what did they do? At some point, probably in the seventh century, they went back and they interpolated a passage, the Jo, it's called the Johannine comma. Have a whole chapter on this in volume one, which has the doctrine of the Trinity. But why did they edit it? So they literally corrupted their own Bible. There was nothing. Hands off one thing and it corrupts the Jewish Bible. Okay, you corrupt, you corrupt your own Bible. They did it. So it was a, probably a Latin passage, probably done first in, we're not sure, but we know it's an interpolation. And today, to the credit of Christian Bibles, if you go to First John 5:8, you go to the commentary, it will tell you that it's a later interpolation, or sometimes they leave it out, or they put it in brackets. They know it was added later. So, I'm not, like, I'm not, believe me, I'm steelmanning this for you. But why did they do it? They did it because there's no doctrine of truth. So as you lie more, the more elaborate your lies become, the more you have to engage in finagling, the more you, is that an English word? I don't know. Yet the more you have to engage in this kind of sophistry and corruption of texts that Christians consider dear or that Jews consider sacred. And that's the story. The key is go back to, go back to the original text. Thank you so much for your thoughtful question to all of you. Shalom. If you enjoyed this program, please like and subscribe.
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]