Exposing the Judaizing Bully Matthew T Adams (My R2B Ministries)
In the work that I do it is guaranteed to find those who disagree with my perspectives and who hungrily take an immediate opportunity to “debunk” or attack or accuse myself or others I may have worked with as liars or deceivers or whatever else. In general I just wave these people off and ignore them. If they harass my email they get blocked. But every so often, the situation demands a formal response and this is one of them.
So Matthew Adams from “My R2B (Reasons to Believe) Ministries” — this one is for you.
First a bit of context. I recently responded to a request from a friend with a small Substack audience, Geoff, who asked me to do a podcast with him to talk about the transition from old to new covenants and how dispensationalism is wrong. Fair enough, I have dozens of hours of material on eschatology and I was happy to help Geoff out, since a good deal of people sadly still believe these things.
Within a day of Geoff posting the video, Matthew already had composed a thorough article “exposing” us, complete with AI generated graphical marketing, timelines and the kind of effort you would put as a teenager into your first junior high science project. Only it was mostly the AI’s effort, but we’ll get to that bit later. Either way, that alone is pathetic in my opinion, because Geoff is harmless and barely has an audience, so it is an incredibly imbalanced way to direct your energy considering the thousands of subscribers Matthew has and the better ways he could be spending his time.
But what’s worse is what came before. Geoff had almost quit writing and making content because of Matthew’s harassment. And yes, I say harassment purposefully because it was nothing short of it. According to Geoff, Matthew did the following to him for many weeks:
1. Wrote to every registered church Pastor in Geoff’s local area to warn them of Geoff’s “cult”. (Geoff has 200-300 subscribers on Substack and like 10 on YouTube).
2. Reported Geoff to the Australian Federal Police as a “cult” leader.
3. Commenced his own “Cult Watch” segment on his own Substack and poisoned everything Geoff wrote, not just to his own subscribers, but to the wider Substack community via Notes.
4. Setting up fake Substack reader profiles under pseudonyms to make it look like there is more opposition to Geoff’s writings.
5. Emailing Geoff just about every day with his relentless taunts, even after requests to stop the emails. He set up new free email addresses to beat Geoff’s spam filters just to taunt him.
Now ask yourself very plainly, is this the behavior of a Christian, let alone one who claims to have a ministry? Is this warranted merely because you disagree with someone’s theology? Or is this the behavior of an insecure bully who probably sits on his ass at his computer 24/7 getting his unresolved aggression out through constant attacks of others?
I do not like bullies, and I told Geoff to stand his ground and not let the trolls get to him, because there will always be people that want to destroy what you work hard to create. I do not endorse everything Geoff believes nor is this a defense of Geoff’s theology in its entirety. I am exposing a bully and I am also responding to his misguided accusations to set the record straight for anyone who has ears to hear.
So then with that out of the way let’s get to the article that Matthew published and correct his misunderstandings, and hopefully his character in the process.
CLAIM 1: THE COVENANT
Matthew invokes Jeremiah 31:31 as a prooftext that the future covenant will be with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, arguing that there is “no handover, no transfer to the nations. Gentiles come in through Israel’s Messiah, and Paul draws the picture himself (Romans 11:17)…Paul never says the tree was cut down and a Gentile tree planted in the hole.” Matthew further goes on to accuse me of believing “replacement theology” in his summation:
This is replacement theology, stated in plain words on a recording. Romans 11:18 exists specifically to stop Gentile believers from thinking what this podcast trains them to think. And notice how Alexander handles the objection at 55:16. He doesn’t answer it from Scripture. He assigns it a source. Jesuits. Once a doctrine you disagree with has been given a conspiratorial origin, you don’t have to refute it anymore. You just name where it came from and move on. Watch for that move. It’s going to happen again.
MY RESPONSE
This is a classic attempt to pin someone in a false dichotomy. Either the covenant was physically “handed away” from Israel to the nations (which means God broke His promise to the Jews) or the original, earthly biological covenant remains completely intact and unchanged. But neither are true, because the New Testament is the fulfillment of God’s promise made manifest in Christ for both Jews and Gentiles.
The Judaizing position here relies on a major equivocation, which is that the olive tree represents the physical nation of Israel, or the fleshly seed of Abraham. But this is soundly refuted by both scripture and history. Paul himself uses the word “Israel” to refer either to physical Israel or the spiritual conglomerate of the elect, as in when he defends the doctrine of unconditional election in Romans 9:6 (”...For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel...”). And if God is sovereign over salvation and determined who would believe (reserving 7000 that would not bow to Baal, etc.), then it is God who determines who the true Israel is by way of election, which is not by the flesh but by God’s own counsel (Ephesians 1, 2, Romans 8, 9, Galatians 3, etc.).
We add further the testimony of Christ Himself, who claimed to be the vine (John 15) and who the prophets also claimed would be the vine (Isaiah 11:1). Solomon compares wisdom to the tree of life in his proverbs, and many will agree that these words are typological of Christ — in fact in Hebrew Genesis 1 can be read as “with wisdom God created the heavens and the earth...”, and we know that Christ is who God created all things through (Hebrews 1:1-3).
Therefore to ascribe the olive tree picture to anyone other than Christ is not consistent with scripture, and it certainly isn’t consistent with historic Christianity or even historic Protestantism, as all the Reformers agreed on this issue and saw “the Israel of God” as the Church. This is not “replacement theology” — it is fulfillment theology. God always had an elect that He determined, and that elect was a group within a group. Physical Israel had many apostates, yet the elect were preserved. As of Christ, that plan of election is being expanded to include all tribes and tongues, because true Israel is a spiritual conglomerate. God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ and were made to Christ (Galatians 3:16) not to the Jews or physical descendants of Abraham.
Therefore no, the covenant was not “handed to the Gentiles” — rather true Israel was pruned of unfruitful branches and new branches have been grafted in. Grafted in to who? To Christ, the vine, the tree of life, the branch, the olive tree. So then who is Paul warning and why? Obviously he is warning the Gentiles, but that doesn’t contradict them receiving the covenant promise. In fact it balances it, because Gentile believers were mocking their fallen Jewish brothers as being discarded by God, but the point is to not be boastful or arrogant because election is no because of any merit in man but only according to God’s will and unconditional. Paul’s entire letter to the Romans is building this case, so that neither Jew nor Greek have anything to boast but rather have gratitude in God for His mercy.
In fact it can even be seen that Paul’s warnings have their fulfillment in history. The rise of the papacy and the corrupted institutional Church as a counterfeit led to great arrogance. Rome abandoned justification by faith, unconditional election and all of these monergistic truths in favor of the blasphemous office of the Pope, who sits in the temple (God’s Church) and proclaims himself to be God, and who demands obedience to a false gospel. Because of this arrogance, this apostate system will be cut off and burned at the end of time, and all who gladly participate in it.
So no, Matthew. I do not believe “replacement theology.” I believe the New Testament, which is fulfillment theology. Judaizers like you are the ones who believe replacement theology. Why? Because:
Dispensationalism replaces the elect bride of Christ with the counterfeit Zionist state of Israel.
Dispensationalism replaces a spiritual temple with a future physical Jewish one.
Dispensationalism replaces enduring to the resurrection with hoping for a magical escape from tribulation called the rapture.
Dispensationalism replaces tribulation of the saints throughout the church age with tribulation of a handful of wicked at the end of time.
Dispensationalism replaces a sovereign, ruling Christ with a future king that can’t prevent sin and death during his 1,000 year reign.
Dispensationalism replaces years with days, and in so doing hides the true identity of Mystery Babylon by misappropriating history.
Dispensationalism replaces kingdoms and powers in Revelation with individuals, and a spiritual counterfeit that sets itself up in the spiritual temple, which is the church, with a political ruler that’s non-Christian as “the antichrist.”
Dispensationalism replaces the final week of Daniel’s 70 weeks, which testifies of Jesus, with a made up week that glorifies the antichrist instead.
Dispensationalism replaces God’s consistent dealings with man by grace through faith with made up “dispensations” that make God seem whimsical and totally arbitrary.
Dispensationalism replaces truth with error and unity with divisive identity politics. It is wrong, unbiblical and deceptive. It is an offshoot of Jesuit theology out of the Counter Reformation and it is contrary to the gospel of grace.
Now Matthew denies being a dispensationalist, and claims he “doesn’t care” where it comes from, but he should. I have hundreds of hours of eschatological content on my channel Matthew, and you don’t need to have done that level of work to know that for most of Church history nobody believed the Jews would get their own state again or rebuild their temple or that God owed them anything (the ones who did not repent and turn to Christ). It was only in the last few centuries, thanks to the Jesuits and the Counter Reformation (something Matthew is obviously clueless about) that these things were proliferated into the world. Thanks also to Freemason puppets like Scofield, who was a drunkard, a fraud and an abuser, and Darby, who was an occultist and mystic who hated the Bible. So you should learn where your beliefs come from, because they certainly don’t come from proper exegesis or even history.
CLAIM 2: THE 70 WEEKS
Matthew then proceeds to attack the connection historicism makes between the 70 weeks prophecy and the 2300 day prophecy, by stating the following:
Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 sit next to each other and share subject matter. Sharing subject matter doesn’t prove subtraction. “Determined upon thy people” is not “cut out of the previous vision.” Those are different statements, and only one of them is in the Bible. Listen to the language Alexander uses. “Has to be.” That’s a logical necessity claim made about a connection the text never draws. Not so. Why it’s dangerous: This is the exact spot where you need to hear the difference between what the Bible says and what a teacher needs it to say. The entire 2,300 year timeline depends on this subtraction. If Daniel 9 isn’t a slice of Daniel 8, the whole calculation loses its anchor. So the connection has to be asserted with force, because the verse won’t carry it. And it’s presented to you not as an interpretation but as the obvious reading. “Has to be.” No verse. No argument from the Hebrew. Just the weight of the man saying it. Once you accept a teacher’s arithmetic as if it were Scripture, you’ve handed him something you can’t easily take back.
MY RESPONSE
One thing you can count on with Judaizers like Matthew is that they will always ignore the context of a given thing, because their fleshly eyes are so hungry for literal interpretations. Yet context determines the meaning of how something is interpreted, and the context of Daniel 9 is connected to the previous chapter in Daniel 8 where he receives a vision of 2300 days and empires, which leaves him confused and sick. That’s how the chapter ends. There is no resolution, because that resolution arrives in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 opens with him asking for guidance because he doesn’t understand the fate of Israel and the last touchpoint left him in confusion. He also sees the time of Israel’s 70 year period is coming to an end, which shows you Daniel looked to history as a second witness to scripture and which establishes the historicist hermeneutic.
But that’s beside the point, which is that Daniel is seeking guidance and resolution. That’s a logical deduction, and considering that the same angel appears, Gabriel, to give him wisdom concerning these things, then it stands to reason that this is a continuation of the previous situation and resolution is being offered for not only Daniel’s immediate concern but, overall, what will happen with Israel, the Messiah, etc. We can deduce this simply from the grandiose fulfillment language of verse 9:24, which is obviously dealing with the Messiah and the fulfillment of God’s promise.
So then when Daniel reports that Gabriel tells him 70 weeks are set apart (or delineated) for Israel, it is obvious that these 70 weeks are being set apart from something. Set apart from what then? From the 2300 day vision he received previously, which dealt with the sanctuary and empires and all manner of historical events. These are not isolated events in a vacuum, they are connected to the visions of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, both of which serve as context and both of which establish a long arc of history from Daniel’s time until the end of the world. And because the sanctuary is involved, as well as God’s people, it is obvious that Daniel 8 is dealing with Israel, just like the other visions do.
So then it is also natural that Gabriel returns to give Daniel clarity on specifics, because thus far he has been given several big pictures spanning thousands of years. And because the 70 weeks prophecy is utilizing the day to year principle, that necessitates that the previous 2300 days is also years, because it is part of it.
A second proof to this is that the vision in question in Daniel 8 covers Greece and Persia, and 2300 days is nowhere near enough time to account for those things. If it’s literal days then that is a little more than 6 years, but Alexander the Great alone ruled for 10 years and his rule is described in this vision as well as what happens after his rule when the Greek empire splits into four. Therefore context overwhelmingly shows that these two chapters are connected and the 490 year prophecy is taken out of the 2300 prophecy. It is not a stand alone prophecy out of nowhere. And because the same themes overlap other prophecies, the rest of the prophecies in Daniel are day to year and so is Revelation, with history testifying very clearly as to all of these things through endless records on the papacy and it’s fulfillment of the warnings of the little horn power that would come out of the 4th beast (Rome) and would persecute the saints, change times and laws, proclaim itself to be God, blaspheme and, ultimately, rule until the end when Jesus returns.
So Matthew, if you want to claim to be a Protestant and pride yourself on exposing error, then you should expose your own error because Protestants all believed these things pretty unilaterally at the beginning of the Reformation. To insert a period of thousands of years between the 69th and 70th weeks is absurd and inconsistent with both the context of the message itself as well as any other prophecy ever given. Not a single prophecy given by God has a gap in between the events, let alone a gap longer than the prophetic events themselves. And if the 70th week is fulfilled in the past with Christ’s ministry, then Judaizing eschatology falls apart because it’s just that: a Jesuit deception.
CLAIM 3: CHALLENGING THE DAY TO YEAR RULE
Here Matthew really shoots himself in the foot, because he concedes that God uses the day to year principle in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6, yet he claims this happens only twice. To use Matthew’s favorite retort, “Not so.”
"You shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall give you 49 years." (Leviticus 25:8)
“I consider the days of old, the years long ago." (Psalm 77:5)
"For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion." (Isaiah 34:8)
And of course, Daniel 9:24 which is in question.
MY RESPONSE
I will grant that the last two examples on this list are more poetic, but Hebrew parallelism shows that people understood days to have a (potentially) symbolic meaning. I will also grant that Matthew’s critique of Geoff’s statement that this is a “golden rule” in all prophecy is overstated. It is not an absolute rule, because Jesus’ death was prophesied to be literally 3 days (counted inclusively of course). But the point here is that there are not just two instances, there are in fact 4 instances where God deliberately equates days to years — Leviticus, Numbers, Daniel and Ezekiel.
That is enough of a pattern to establish a hermeneutical basis for interpreting timestamped prophecies, and when we test those timestamps with history we see they indeed work out exactly to the year. But either way, historicism is well founded and it is also historically Protestant. To deny historicism is to align with Rome because Rome was the chief architect behind the attacks on historicism through Preterism (Jesuit Luis de Alcazar) and Dispensationalism/Judaizing Futurism (Jesuits Bellarmine, Ribera and Lacunza). Historicism isn’t right automatically because the Jesuits created these competing narratives, historicism is right because it is honest with the text. The 70 weeks are day to year interpreted, and they match history exactly on several key events from the decree by Artaxerxes in 457 BC to the arrival of Jesus and His ministry in 27 AD. That means the 2300 day prophecy, which it was taken out of, is also day to year and that matches the previous context of Daniel 2 (from Babylon through the return of Christ) and Daniel 7 (from Babylon through the return of Christ). Daniel is therefore a historical book dealing with the historical context prior to the Church Age, and as such it deals with large periods of time that are recapitulated and anchored in the transition of empires, so that Satan’s schemes can be visible in the Church Age.
CLAIM 4: SMYRNA’S PERSECUTION
Matthew proceeds to stumble further, exposing his AI slop generated book report and his poor hermeneutics:
Ten days. No year conversion. No emperor named. No century given. Jesus is comforting a church that was suffering right then, telling them to be faithful unto death. The Diocletian connection isn’t in Revelation. It’s supplied by the interpreter, using the rule from the last section, which also isn’t in Revelation. Not so. Why it’s dangerous: Look at what just happened. Claim three manufactured a tool. Claim four used the tool and produced a result. Then the result gets pointed at as evidence the tool works. That’s the machine. Watch it run three more times.
MY RESPONSE
At this point it should be obvious that Matthew likely ripped the transcript from our interview and fed it into ChatGPT, and asked for a neatly presented graphic, timeline, and done-for-you refutation so that he can look incredibly smart and well prepared in front of his audience. The problem is, when you rely on AI to do your book report it can make mistakes.
Revelation is a sister book to Daniel and they cannot be interpreted individually of each other. More specifically, Revelation itself cannot be interpreted apart from first interpreting Daniel. Consider the following:
Daniel is the 27th book of the OT, and Revelation is the 27th book of the NT
Both books are organized into two equal parts thematically (Daniel 1-6, 7-12; Revelation 1-10, 12-22)
Both contain around 11,000 words, making them very similar in breadth and scope
Both books deal with the end times prophecies, with Daniel 12 and Revelation 1 establishing this focus
Both mention the 1260 day period multiple times
Both mention an antichrist power that persecutes God’s people, blasphemes God and rules until the very end
In Daniel the scroll is sealed (Daniel 12), yet in Revelation we see that scroll opened and the seven seals being unlocked
These and many other parallels require any good student of prophecy to understand Daniel first before interpreting Revelation. But if you are a carnal Judaizer like Matthew, then you ignore context and just cry “See! It doesn’t say that! It doesn’t say year, it says days!” You will have to do better than argue from silence to prove your points Matthew.
Any good student of the Bible understands a foundational rule of context is to consider the text that came beforehand. In this situation that’s Daniel, and Daniel is relevant for two reasons: first, it is before Revelation and obviously sets the preface, so it needs to be considered before dealing with the final book of the Bible. Second, Daniel is concrete and historical, whereas Revelation is wildly colorful and symbolic. Daniel therefore provides the historical scaffolding, so that we understand what happens in the Church Age, and that is why Daniel was given these prophecies centuries before Christ, so that Satan’s schemes (to counterfeit the kingdom) would be exposed.
So no, the prophecy for Smyrna doesn’t say 10 years. But that doesn’t mean it’s literally 10 days either. You’re assuming your conclusion is true and the only basis you have is that it doesn’t say years. But Revelation is interpreted historically, like any Protestant would have done 500 years ago, because Revelation is a continuation of Daniel. And if that’s true, then the Churches also represent phases of the Church Age and the time periods (1260, 10, etc.) are not literal days but years, because you’re dealing with history.
All of that is incredibly consistent for those who understand context. But for the carnal minded it is as usual a stumbling block.
CLAIMS 5-6: THE HORSEMEN & PHASES OF THE CHURCH
Matthew continues on the same track as he did with the previous argument to try to convince the reader that these prophecies in Revelation are not actually about the Church Age and history. He says,
“Those were seven real churches in Asia Minor. Real cities. Real problems. Real commendations. Real warnings from Jesus Himself. Scripture never says these seven are seven consecutive periods of church history. Jesus doesn’t say it. John doesn’t say it. Nobody in the passage says it. Why it’s dangerous: Notice where this scheme always deposits you. We’re in Laodicea. The dead age. The lukewarm age. Which means every church you might walk into on Sunday is presumed spoiled before you get there, and the man explaining the scheme is standing outside the system he just condemned. That isn’t a conclusion drawn from Revelation 3. That’s a conclusion that clears the field of every voice but one.”
MY RESPONSE
I have never said that these are exclusively phases of the Church. The historicist position espouses typological threads and multiple near and far meanings because God works through physical realities to paint pictures of greater things, just like He did with all the pictures of Christ using individuals, or real events like the Exodus to portray greater things like the New Covenant.
So yes, Matthew, these were real churches in the 1st century. Nobody is debating that here. But that’s not all they were, because just as God used Joseph to paint a picture of the Messiah centuries ahead of Jesus using Joseph’s time in Egypt, so too did God use these 7 churches to paint a picture of the Church Age, because that’s what Daniel and Revelation are about. But since you do not consider Daniel as a foundation for Revelation, of course you would get lost and stumble in literalism with arguments from silence and with taking these passages completely out of their context.
The real churches themselves were on a mailing route that, when put in order, parallels perfectly the history of the last 2000 years. And yes, we are in Laodicea, the lukewarm church. Believing that is not “dangerous” like your AI assistant told you — unless you’re an institutional grifter such as yourself who has turf to defend and tradition to protect.
No, believing that is consistent with reality. Look around you. There is more delusion today in the Church than at any time in history with all of the schemes of the devil. People are more comfortable than ever, more cold to the weak and unfortunate than ever, more deceived and more lukewarm in their faith than ever before. Why? Because we have everything. We are comfortable and warm and taken care of, and that is why Jesus’ warnings for our Church is to endure tribulation, to be tried by fire, and to be passionate for the truth — because the strong delusion will be given to those who love tradition over the truth.
CLAIM 7: SEMINARY IS NOT INDOCTRINATION
Here Matthew reveals the turf he’s defending by attacking my comments that, even though there are good pastors out there, they are largely indoctrinated because they went to seminary. He says,
“Paul commanded formal transmission of doctrine to trained men. Acts 15 is a council. Apostles and elders gathered over a doctrinal question, heard testimony, searched Scripture, reached a conclusion, and sent it to the churches. Paul told Titus to ordain elders in every city and gave written qualifications for the office. Not so. Why it’s dangerous: Ask the plain question. If every seminary-trained pastor is indoctrinated, if every council is compromised, if every institution is corrupt, then who is left with standing to correct these two men? Nobody. Not one soul. There’s no eldership over them in this podcast. No congregation that can discipline them. No body that can say “brother, that’s wrong” and make it stick. And this doctrine doesn’t just protect them. It strips you. If you take it seriously, you have no pastor, no elders, no church family, nobody close enough to see you drifting.”
MY RESPONSE
The fact you admit to “sitting under Jack Hibbs” reveals the entire problem here, because Jack Hibbs is a heretic and Mossad asset who grifts as hard as any charismatic or prosperity preacher I have ever seen. Ironically he also doesn’t have any formal seminary or Bible college degree, so that really shoots you in the foot a second time. Either way, the fact you choose to align with such people reveals everything to the discerning mind.
While it is true that Paul and the apostles commanded there to be elders in the Church, the interpretation that such commands correlate to modern institutional Churchianity with its godking pastors sitting in front of massive audiences with fog machines and making millions — that is a bogus assertion.
The original Church was highly decentralized and in people’s homes. It had a plurality of elders and service men/women. There is no such thing as a “pastor” in the sense of how modern Protestantism has made it out to be. There are elders, and they were older, mature individuals. There are also teachers, like Timothy was, who were also part of the edification of the flock. But 2000 years ago they did not have seminaries that were compromised, like the Freemasonic Dallas Theological Seminary or many others, all of whom are completely compromised entities designed to destroy Protestantism from the inside.
Whether you agree with my eschatology or not, you can look around today and see that history has only gotten worse. And if the end means massive worldwide spiritual delusion, it stands to reason that Satan’s influence will only grow and deception will maximize. So yes, I stand by my words. Seminary is indoctrination. That doesn’t mean you should discount someone immediately just because they went to seminary. I’ve never said that. But it does mean you should have discernment, because seminary is an institution and institutions are compromised for a variety of reasons not the least of which is tradition over truth — especially this late in the game 500 years after the Jesuits were formed.
But you are clueless on the impact of Jesuitism and Freemasonry when it comes to Protestant theology and institutions, or how these forces took over the United States after the Civil War through central banking and subversion, or the influence of the Rothschilds, Knights of Malta, and all of their ilk. You have no clue, because if you did then you wouldn’t be so eager and hungry to defend institutions as bastions of truth. You would instead ask what is true and align with that truth even if it costs you tradition or institutional clout, but you don’t because your entire worldview would collapse the moment you entertain the idea that institutions (and earthly authorities you fawn over) might be corrupt.
CLAIM 8: THE MASORETIC TEXT
Here ChatGPT (sorry, I mean Matthew) pulls out the typical “anti-semitic” lobotomized mainstream tropes to try to argue that my statements on the corrupted Masoretic text are unsubstantiated:
“Stop and hear what that is. That’s a charge of deliberate corruption of the Word of God, made against a named group, with a stated motive, in about twenty seconds, with no evidence offered. There are real differences between the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and New Testament quotations. Serious men have given their lives to studying them. Some New Testament citations do follow the Greek where the Hebrew reads differently. That’s a real field of study and it’s worth your time. A textual difference doesn’t prove intent. To establish intent you’d have to show the original reading, when it changed, who changed it, and evidence of motive. All four. Documented. The recording gives none of it. It makes the charge in passing, mid-sentence, and moves on to the next topic. Why it’s dangerous: This is the heaviest thing in the episode, and I want to say plainly what it does. It puts a crack in your Bible. If the Hebrew text has been tampered with to hide Christ from the Gentiles, then you can’t simply open the Book and check anymore. You need somebody to tell you which parts survived and which parts were edited out. You need a guide. And the men who told you the text is compromised are standing right there. I’m not claiming that’s why they said it. I can’t see motive and I won’t invent one. I’m telling you what the claim does when it lands in a believer’s hands. If anyone ever tells you the Bible you’re holding can’t be trusted without him, back up. That move is the oldest one on record.”
MY RESPONSE
If it’s not obvious Matthew used ChatGPT to respond to this episode then hopefully it should be obvious by now. This is typical Judaized brain rot mainstream training, which ChatGPT is very well known for given its Jewish CEO (Sam Altman) and highly liberal leaning responses. But nobody ever said you can’t trust your Bible, Matthew. If you actually looked through my content you would see I have many pieces on why we can trust the Bible and how I hold a very high view of the Bible.
But the Masoretic text is not the Bible. It is a Judaized translation of the Bible, and for the most part it’s fine — with the exception of several significant elements that I have exposed in great detail.
I have documented these things extensively in my 6+ hour series on The Masoretic Psyop and its various errors. The Masoretic text is an inferior text and it has historical errors, because it was composed by rabbinic Jews who hate Christ and who wanted to erase Him from history. This is well documented by patristic sources, like Origen, who in their day were experiencing the re-writing of the scriptures by the Jews already. But the rabbis did this in several ways.
First, they deliberately attacked the very verses cited in the New Testament, especially in Hebrews, as proof texts — changing them to lessen their messianic or new covenant impact. I will provide you with several examples. They also altered the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 11, shortening time by around 1000 years. The goal is to make it seem as if Shem was Melchizedek and therefore passed his priesthood down to Abraham, and Abraham eventually to Levi, and therefore Christ cannot be a priest by the order of Melchizedek.
This is Talmudic teaching, and it relies on 1000 years of missing time. But history refutes this easily, because a flood date of ~2300 BC (as per the Masoretic timeline) is irreconcilable with known history, archaeology or common sense population growth metrics. There is simply no time to have the Babel incident or create nations or pyramids, yet with a corrected Septuagint timeline there is more than enough time for all of those things to happen. As a result of this sleight of hand, the Jews also teach a 1000 year messianic golden age that will be a “Sabbath rest kingdom” and will happen by the year 6000 in the “Hebrew” calendar. But we are well past the year 6000 in Earth’s history, so these are deceptions and teachings of men.
As for specific verses, I am not going to document them all here because I have a 6 hour series for anyone that actually wants to learn the truth and not hold to traditions of men. But here are just a few out of the dozens that exist and that many have already documented:
Luke 3:4-6 — Quoting Isaiah 40:3-5, “shall see the salvation” is changed to an impersonal “it” as in all flesh will see God’s glory, versus all flesh will see God’s salvation. One is inclusive of the Gentiles, the other is an open door for Zionism to triumph over its enemies.
Luke 4:18-19 — Quoting Isaiah 6:1-2, “sight to the blind” is removed to disassociate Jesus as the one fulfilling these prophecies through His miracles.
Hebrews 10:5 — Quoting Psalm 40:6, “a body have you prepared for me” was replaced with “my ears you have opened”, directly removing the reference to the incarnation and propitiation of the Messiah.
Galatians 3:13 — Quoting Deuteronomy 21:23, “hanged on a tree” is changed to simply “hanged” to disassociate the reference Paul applies to Christ and the crucifixion.
Psalm 22:20 — “Only begotten one” being delivered is changed to “my precious life” (ESV), focus put on David and taken away from who it was originally put on: Christ.
Matthew 1:23 — Quoting Isaiah 7:14, in the Masoretic the word there was changed from virgin to simply “young woman”, where the older LXX (translated by Jews before Jesus who had no bias) translated it “parthenos” (virgin). The KJV and ESV corrected this in English, but the Masoretic text still lists the wrong word. It should have read “bethulah” not “almah”. An example is Exodus 22:16, where they had no bias or reason to change it.
Matthew 12:19-21 — Quoting Isaiah 42:4, deliberately removed “and in his name shall the Gentiles trust” (reference to the fulfillment of the covenant in Christ), replacing it with “and the isles shall wait for his law” — an easy verse to twist for Noahide or Zionist world supremacy and everyone becoming the Jews’ slaves in the messianic age, which is what the rabbis believe and desire.
Besides these there are countless others and it is a fool’s errand to try to argue that the Masoretic is the superior text. Most of the citations in the New Testament follow the Septuagint, and when we analyze the two it is clear that the Masoretic was composed by rabbinic Jews after Christ and had an agenda. That agenda is to remove Christ from the scriptures while simultaneously establishing a counterfeit eschatology and messianic age.
To be ignorant of these things is to show that despite your intellectual posturing and seminary education or whoever you’re sitting under, you have yet to actually learn anything of value.
CLAIM 9: IDOLIZING THE BIBLE
Matthew goes on to pick out something Geoff said and takes it completely out of its context, because as we know — carnal Judaizers don’t just miss context when it comes to the Bible, but also with everything they look at. Geoff stated very plainly in our conversation that it is possible to turn the Bible into an idol when you weaponize it and do not question anything anyone teaches you.
Matthew’s take on that is the following:
Why it’s dangerous: Line these up in order and see what you’re left holding. Seminaries are compromised. Councils are corrupt. Other teachers are indoctrinated. The Hebrew text was tampered with. Other voices are the tree of knowledge. And focusing too hard on the Bible can become an idol. Every external check has now been removed. Every. single. one. What remains is discernment, exercised by the teacher, unverifiable by you. That’s not a Berean standard. That’s the opposite of one.
MY RESPONSE
If it’s one thing ChatGPT and Matthew have in common, it is that they both are great at taking something out of context. At least upgrade to Claude and use Opus with high effort next time, not the free tier of the most liberal and dumbed down model there is. But I digress.
In my KJV Only Psyop series, I discuss how people idolize a translation based on their tradition and biases. Modern KJV Onlyism has led to many fanatics and is only associated with people who have horrible theology. You never see sensible-minded people preach KJV Onlyism. Instead you see the snake handling churches or those who believe Satan is supernaturally changing the words in the KJV or people who accuse you of being a heretic for reading the ESV or any number of other stupid things. Meanwhile these same people are doing Jewish gematria and mysticism to prove the legitimacy of a translation that was produced by the Freemason occultist Francis Bacon and a homosexual king James that it is named after.
That doesn’t mean anything to me as a monergist, because God works all things for the good and I actually think the KJV is a decent translation. But I do not idolize it, nor do I agree with people who weaponize verses (or poorly weaponize AI to bully others such as Matthew), because these are misguided at best and idolatrous at worst. It is idolatrous to elevate a work of man (a translation) to the level of a divine object and to use that and weaponize it against anyone different than you to shame them, accuse them and revile them. But that’s what you get with idolatry, and when people are called out on it they cry and scratch and hiss and moan.
So yes, idolatry of the Bible is totally possible because man has no limits to what he can idolize. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust your Bible or be paranoid, which is the straw man you are trying to present in your article about me. It simply means what was said, which you took out of context: that you should always have discernment and test all things.
CLAIM 10: WHO COUNTS AS A CHRISTIAN
Here Matthew wastes more of our time by trying to attack my position that those who adamantly deny Paul are not Christians. He says,
“Where it goes wrong is the next step. He moves from “this position is badly wrong” to “these people are not Christians,” and he does it in one breath, with no examination of any individual, no process, no accountability. He does soften it slightly at 1:39:02, allowing that struggling with Paul might be acceptable. Give him that. But the pattern stands. He’s rendering verdicts on salvation from a podcast chair.”
MY RESPONSE
Paul’s writings are inspired and God-given. Paul suffered greatly, and was validated by Peter and Luke. Paul’s teachings are completely consistent with Jesus’ on every significant topic. Therefore, to deny Paul is to deny the testimony of God through multiple witnesses. I do not believe anyone who adamantly rejects Paul and teaches others that Paul was a false apostle is a Christian.
It is possible for people to question elements of the Bible and be a Christian, and I have never said that proper theology is a requisite for salvation. In fact one of the mysteries I always point to is that this is not the case, which means we have to have compassion on others that know less than we do or are deceived.
But as usual you rip my words out of context because you aren’t actually looking to clarify what someone said, you’re looking for more rage bait content for your pathetic “Cult Watch” publication. The context of what I was discussing were false teachers, who use their platform to actively lead people away from Paul and therefore the gospel. I do not believe such people are regenerate Christians. That does not mean that all of them are reprobate, because they may be elect and God will grant them repentance at some point in time. But the Holy Spirit would never guide you into such gross error, and to sit here and try to defend such false teachers is disgustingly ignorant. Giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who is questioning and struggling with Paul’s writings is genuinely a different matter than giving the benefit of the doubt to a wolf in sheep’s clothing, something Paul warned about and so did the others many times
CONCLUSION
If you made this far, congratulations. It is obvious that Matthew not only needs to study more, but also stop relying on AI to do the thinking for him. The per-claim template that never varies across all ten arguments (quoting what we said, quote Scripture, “Not so,” then the stakes etc.) is exactly what you get when a model is told to produce a uniform refutation list in response to a source content (i.e. transcript).
The recurring “Why it’s dangerous:” recap on every single claim is the big tell because it’s a signature move of AI responses — models reflexively append a “here’s why this matters” beat to each item because that’s how they’re tuned to be “helpful.” And the escalation summary near the end (”line these up in order… every external check has now been removed”) is the kind of tidy synthesis a model generates when you ask it to tie the list together.
So Matthew sits at his desk, spends a few minutes ripping the transcript from the video — most likely doesn’t watch it or watches only a few minutes — and then feeds it into ChatGPT to get a cookie cutter “defend this anti-semitism quick!” done-for-you refutation. He’s so lazy he can’t even edit out the AI “Why it’s dangerous” preambles and try to make it more authentic, but that only belies his own intellect (or lackthereof) and lack of academic rigor if anything.
Suffice it to say that I have better things to do than to argue with AI slop generated rage baiting Judaizer content all day, and with losers that are not only arrogant but laser-focused on attacking others just to make themselves look better. That is why I felt the need to respond to Matthew because I hate bullies and I hate liars.
So a word of caution to anyone indulging Matthew: he is not actually motivated to find the truth or to edify anyone, he is motivated to elevate himself over others and attack anyone he deems a threat so as to profit off of it as much as he can. Matthew is also a very deceived man and will have to come to terms with that deception soon enough, just like all of his Zionist loving Judaizing buddies, because the world will marvel after the papacy just as the Bible predicted and the future is going to see a one world institutional counterfeit Church — and those with the most institutional turf to defend (like Matthew) are going to be prime pickings for Satan.
So wake up now Matthew, and while you are at it get a life and channel all that aggression into more productive means.
