January 3, 2006

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James white.

A Judge Orders a Priest to Prove Jesus Existed

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line. Just surfing the net very very slowly here and. Someone in channel just mentioned this this article. I figured is a good way to get started today. Prove Christ exists.

Judge orders priest. This is from Richard Owen in Rome. This is the Europe section of the Times online.

And.

An Italian judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed. The case against father Enrico Rigi has been brought in the town of Viterbo north of Rome by Luigi caschioli a Retired Agronomist who once studied for the priesthood, but later became a militant atheist.

Haven't been over there. I'm not surprised by that. It's a very secular country now atheism everywhere. Senior caschioli author of a book called the fable of Christ began legal proceedings against father Rigi Three years ago after the priest denounced senior caschioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ's historical existence.

Yesterday a Gatano Maltoni a judge in Viterbo said a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered father Rigi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up. The case was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal.

Which agreed that senior caschioli had a reasonable case for his accusation of father Rigi was abusing popular credulity. Senior caschioli's contention echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus Lived and died in first century palestine apart from the gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith.

Oh, yeah. There's there's nothing historical about the gospel accounts. Uh-huh. There is therefore no basis for Christianity. He claims Senior caschioli's one-man campaign came to a head of the court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of abuse of popular credulity and impersonation both offenses under the Italian penal code.

He argued that all claims to the existence of Jesus from sources of the Bible stem from authors who lived after the time of the hypothetical Jesus and were therefore not reliable witnesses,. I I'm sorry, but how can any Any human being not laugh at that?

If they lived before Jesus. They're called prophets as someone pointed out.

So.

Any evidence of someone's existence that lived after the person is not reliable evidence. Brilliant. Oh my goodness, and and in it and a judge well see what happens when when. Oh my goodness. Hi. Yeah.

Yeah senior caschioli maintains the early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala an Anti-roman Jewish insurgent in first century Palestine church authorities were therefore guilty of substitution of persons.

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius Mention a Christus or crestus, but we're writing well after the life of the poor Jesus and we're relying on hearsay. Father II he said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ's existence in Religious and secular texts millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and son of God for 2 ,000 years.

If caschioli does not see the Sun the sky at midday He cannot sue me because I see it. And he does not father II he said. Senior caschioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the twelve apostles.

He said that he would withdraw his legal action of father II he came up with irrefutable proof of Jesus existence by the end of the month the Vatican has so far declined to comment. Oh my goodness. Oh My oh my oh my I Tell you I heard some really weird stuff when I was in Italy there are some very that that that's that's really that's really bad.

And I did also notice that centurion.

Who.

Views himself as one of the leading bloggers on the planet and You know he's done that without ever really doing anything other than fighting with I monk which is very easy to do because if you just mention I'm on people will explode all around you, but and now he's handing out wooden nickel awards for 2005 and.

One of the categories was meanest Calvinist for 2005. I was up against Calvinist gadfly. Sorry, he's not mean Metalutheran which is just an insult to metalutheran of course. Steve camp not liberal at open diary and video and The comment is there was no question the voting that after nearly 20 years of banging people over the head with Greek Hebrew the NA USB eclectic text dozens of electronic gadgets and many many crisp meat burritos.

The hands-down meanest Calvinist on the Internet is still dr. James R. White to whom we give this wooden nickel. The problem is I only get my crisp meat burritos when I'm in, Utah Minnesota or near Seattle because well they are opening a taco time here in in Phoenix.

It's gonna open on February 1st. I think I'll have to be there for the opening. I Love taco time and if someone would like to start a taco time restaurant somewhere In the Glendale Phoenix area I would very much appreciate it.

I would be a regular customer at your taco time if you did that but Anyways so that that's not fully accurate, but there are some of the most fascinating interesting news on the on the news front. There we already have one phone call and the phone lines are open at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we have been listening to.

There's a taco time in Missoula, Montana. Now how can there be a taco time in Missoula, Montana, but there's not one in Phoenix, Arizona. That just it just doesn't you know. I mean they could take over half the taco times around here they're there are Taco Bell's around here.

There's a Taco Bell in every corner and.

But.

Anyway, I yeah, I would like to cut the ribbon at the biggest crisp meat burrito fan. They have ever known Club, but. We have been listening to Bart Ehrman's NPR interview there. I've mentioned. There's two interviews and.

And the second interview to be honest with you is a whole lot easier to listen to than the first interview. So since we had gotten to the point where they started taking phone calls and I'm sorry, but phone calls are on our program our phone callers are great, but most other stations and programs phone calls are not overly great and.

So we're gonna go to the second NPR interview which was fairly short actually looking at here. It's 12 minutes and 48 seconds long, so that's not very very long. But this one's a little bit easier to listen to moves at a much higher pace.

And it starts off rather interestingly and it starts off like like this.

This is fresh air. I'm Terry gross. There's a bumper sticker that reads God said it. I believe it. I guess Bart Ehrman's reaction to that is well. What if God didn't say it? What if the book you take as giving you God's words instead contains human words?

Ehrman is the author of the new book misquoting Jesus. It's about how the New Testament was altered by the scribes who hand wrote each copy and in the process made intentional or unintentional.

Changes, you know, it's interesting. I was reading Dan Wallace's response to Bart Ehrman. He said pretty much same things. I've said that he you know massively overstates his case. It's a matter of spin and things like that but one of the things he mentioned is that.

The title of the book has almost nothing to do with the substance of the book because while it's a general reduction of textual critical concepts with a agenda attached He actually doesn't deal with any of the words of Jesus.

The variants have to do with Paul and and other things but not actually variants about the words of Christ. Which I hadn't even noticed myself, which is rather interesting.

Ehrman shares the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He's a scholar of the New Testament and the early church. He was born again at the age of 15 and studied at the Moody Bible Institute.

Later while attending Princeton Theological Seminary He started to have doubts about the literal interpretations of the Bible. He now describes himself as an agnostic. Let's start with how the Bible was hand copied for almost 1 ,500 years.

With the Bible we're talking about a period before there is movable type and so for books to be reproduced. They had to be copied by hand. Let me just stop him right there for a moment.

It was interesting that she describes him as he describes a happy agnostic. You know, I I have a hard time be perfectly honest with you respecting the self-identified claim of agnosticism. I Really do especially given the certainty with which he speaks on certain issues.

I Have a hard time respecting someone's why I just don't know that we can know. It sounds very postmodern and it's you know fits in with a modern culture, so I just personally have a little bit easier time dealing with an atheist than a.

Agnostic and so all of the books of the New Testament and all of the books in fact from all of Antiquity were reproduced by hand, which is a very slow painstaking process. To mass-produce a book in the ancient world meant that you would give the book to a To a company that that did these things and they might have five scribes there who would copy the book.

And so the mass production or the Kinkos of the ancient world was the little scribal shop on the corner where you might have five guys doing this to make a living. So the book the books got copied out by hand.

And copying a book by hand, of course meant copying at one sentence one word one letter at a time and. And that's that's not only a painstaking a slow process. It's also The process is open for mistakes to be made.

Either accidental mistakes as a scribe is just being Careless or possibly he's tired or possibly he's inept and sometimes scribes actually change the text intentionally or of course.

It doesn't require ineptness. It doesn't require you being tired. First thing in the morning fresh. Ready to go in my office with with lights and and air conditioning and spell-checking. I can make mistakes while copying from something.

So that's a rather obvious reality that when we copy things we are human beings. We make mistakes doesn't have to do with our ineptness or anything else along along the ways. But again, these are all issues that are rather straightforward.

By the way, I was just looking at the screen. This is more than 12 minutes. It's just the section that I had queued up here. It's probably.

The full half-hour type thing that said the last one was when they think the text ought to say something different from what it does. Say they could change the text and then once of course. They changed the text.

The change was made permanent because this was the copy then that somebody else would use now.

Listen to that there. I find a tremendous problem in Airman's thesis because while he is right in the sense that the tenacity of the text That is once that change made it will remain in the manuscript tradition now, by the way.

Especially in a scriptorium there were frequently proofreaders. There would be someone who would go over things they would Prepare things many of the older manuscripts show multiple hands working on the same manuscript.

You have corrections and things like that. If you look at the textual data in a Greek New Testament, you will see for example When you have ancient Manuscripts that were that were especially important witnesses you will have either a like a little asterix or a One or a two or an a or a B to indicate which hand? Had which reading and so you could actually see multiple readings in one manuscript and so that that could take place.

There are a number of things that come up there. So this is rather simplistic presentation. It's not overly accurate in what it's saying. But the point is that the tenacity of the text once the reading is there then it remains in the tradition that means the original stays there and that's Something I never hear him saying.

I never hear him saying well, you know, the original still there but there are some places not not all that many compared to the What could be and what would be with any other work of antiquity? He'll never I never hear him again.

Never is a big word, but we're talking just about what we've listened to here on these programs. I never hear him saying now, of course comparison to anything else in antiquity if we have if we have to be agnostic about the original readings of the New Testament then we Have to be much more agnostic about Everything else from antiquity.

I mean it really if you apply this standard to Everything else there's there's nothing else that can even come close The New Testament and textual purity and the witnesses to the New Testament in in the ancient world.

And so if you're gonna be agnostic about this Then then basically we really don't know much about what happened in the past at all because we really can't trust any of these things I would imagine response.

We'd yeah, but no one's claiming those were inerrant and that goes back to his theology and stuff like that. But anyway, that tenacity the text the fact that the original stay there and that it's an issue of working through the variance.

Of those specific points that doesn't seem to come out in what he's saying who copied the text later.

Let's look at one of the classic stories in the New Testament that You say scholars say was changed and Changed by scribes and this is the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. Tell it tell the story as we know it.

Well, it's a terrific story. It's found in the Gospel of John chapter 7 and 8. The Jewish leaders have caught a woman committing adultery and they bring her to Jesus and they set a trap for Jesus. They they ask him they say according to the law of Moses This woman should be stoned to death.

What do you say? So Jesus has put in this predicament because if he if he says No have mercy on her as you would expect him to say since he's been preaching a Doctrine of love and mercy if he says that then he's a he's breaking the law of Moses.

But if he says no go ahead and stoner then obviously he's violating his own teachings about love and mercy. And so what's he to do? Well, he he stoops down and starts drawing on the ground and he looks up and he says let the one Without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her and then he stoops back down and starts riding again and slowly one by one all of her accusers leave until he looks up and sees that she's alone and she Is then to her?

Is there no one left to condemn you and she says no Lord no one and he says neither do I condemn you go and sin?

No more. Now. What's what's historically questions in this story?

Well, it's the whole story is very it's a very interesting story for a lot of reasons interpreters have puzzled over it over the years for one of the Leading questions is if this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

Where's where's the man? Because according to the law of Moses both of them are to be stoned to death, but apparently they've only come away with a woman. So there are interesting interpretive questions.

The bigger issue is whether in fact This is a story that belongs in the Bible or not as it turns out. Even though this is the favorite story of people who who read the Bibles and who make movies about the Bible for Hollywood.

And now I let me just mention we've gone four minutes 24 seconds in here and we're dealing with. And and this is what I'm noticing. Other scholars are saying about airmen here as well which substantiates my own feeling that we're really sadly dealing with an issue of Of selling books here and not really dealing with with the truth and the issues and that is.

Everybody knows about the textual variant John 7 53 3 8 11. It's not it's you know. He's not the first person to have spoken about it. If you want to see my discussion of it. I have a fairly, you know, John.

It's discussed on page 262 of the King James only controversy. I go through the various the evidence against the originality. This pericope is extensive and wide-ranging including both external and internal elements.

Externally. We note the passage is omitted by a truly diverse group of ancient manuscripts including p66 p75 all of BLNT W Delta Theta Psi 141 33 1 7 5 65 12 41 13 33 Asterix and 1424 the majority of lectionaries Latin versions and Syriac versions.

Both a and C most probably did not contain the passage though. Both are defective in the section of John hence cannot be consulted directly. Other manuscripts do not contain the passage mark it off with asterix or a bell.

I this amount of evidence alone would be sufficient. But there is more in the manuscripts to contain the passage. It is normally found after John 7 52 however in manuscript 225. It is found after 7 36 and others after 7 44 in a group of others after John 21 25 and in family 13 is not Even found in John, but after Luke 21 38 such moving about by body of text is plain evidence of its later origin and the attempt of the part of scribes to find a Place where it fits such as not the earmark of the original of an original passage of the gospel, etc, etc.

So it's nothing there's nothing. Exciting here in the sense of this is new information and the you know to attempt to substantiate what the real meaning is of the the title of the book misquoting Jesus would require You know dealing with something but actually have some sort of impact and yet every time people ask for specifics as we saw last week.

The specifics are very weak passages there they're passages that have been discussed many many many times before and It seems to me really rather crass to go out into places like NPR and into the into the streets where people have No knowledge of the background of the issues and things like that and throw this kind of stuff around as if it somehow has some some great and tremendous meaning to it.

It just bothers me tremendously.

This story probably was not original to the Gospel of John. The earliest manuscripts we have of the Gospel of John don't have this story and None of the Greeks writing church fathers. The New Testament of course itself was written in Greek.

None of the Greek writing church fathers Who comment on the Gospel of John? Included in their commentaries until the 12th century. So 1 ,200 years after the book itself was was written. This shows that the early manuscripts simply didn't have the story.

So then the question is how did we get the story. Well in the Middle Ages apparently a scribe knew the story had heard of the story someplace through somebody telling him the story and wrote it down in the margin of a manuscript and some other scribe came along and Saw this story in the margin of a manuscript and then transferred it into the manuscript itself.

Which is probably the origination of John 5 for by the way just in passing might make that comment.

For the in the Gospel of John and from from then on that manuscript got copied and one of the subsequent copies of that manuscript is The was the copy that was used then by the King James translators when they translated the Bible.

Well, yeah, I mean It becomes much more prevalent in the in later Byzantine manuscripts. And and hence is part of the TR and becomes a part of the text that is then translated by the King James translators.

That's again a little bit simplistic as far as the presentation there goes, but. Yeah, okay, but you know what's amazing to me is that there's so little of that comparatively speaking. I mean you would think that we would be dealing with this on on every other page in New Testament.

But we aren't. We've got John 5 for. We have John 7 53 3 8 11 possibly first John 5 7. Other than that we have. You know the longer ending of Mark really doesn't fit into that. That's not a that's not something that would be in the in the margin and included.

But as far as entire passages, but that's it that that's pretty much it. I'm trying to think off top my head. I mean you have you know some instances where a verse that's in Matthew will end up inserting later manuscripts in Luke's assembly is because the scribe assumed it was supposed to be there or thought it Should be there some along those lines because it's a parallel account something like that parallel corruptions very very.

Easily recognized, but that's about it, and you know that doesn't. That doesn't really help you. Substantiate your accusation that there's this wholesale kind of editing going on and things like that.

But.

So that this story has become totally familiar to people who read English, but it wouldn't have been known at all to Greek reading Christians reading the Gospel of John in the ancient world.

Can you explain a little bit more what might have led a scribe in the 12th century to add this story.

Well, it's a terrific story in in the Gospel of John right at this point Jesus is condemning his opponents for not judging not judging one another fairly by not having a right judgment and This is a story that in a way Encapsulates that idea that judgment is to be a righteous judgment.

And and that mercy is more important than judgment and so this illustrates the point being made in John chapter 7 and 8. And I suppose a scribe was reading John 7 and 8 and Thinking about it and thought you know that this story I heard in fact fits right in here, and I put it in the margin of fourth and later recopied into the text.

There does seem to be evidence that has an ancient origin to it at least it's certainly consistent with Jesus teaching anyways. But but once again, we there's there's really no question. I don't think I know that some of those who argue for Byzantine priorities I don't know it fits just perfectly and here's the evidence for it and blah blah blah, but the idea Trying to explain why it would be deleted by the wide variety of Sources I think that's one of the it's one of those passages sort of is a telltale sign of where.

You can become imbalanced in your Byzantine priority argumentation too, but be that as it may I still Sit here going well. I can see how this Plays great on NPR, but this doesn't play great with anyone who actually knows anything about the subject.

So what's your actual purpose here?

I mean did the scribes have that much freedom in the work that they could just add a story.

Well, it's shocking but you know. It's it's it's shocking to my students just how often the the scribes would change their texts. We tend to think that I feel for a student in our setting today when a book is produced.

It's always the same book so I can go out and buy a copy of the Da Vinci Code. And it doesn't matter what city in America I buy the copy. It's exactly the same copy word-for-word the same and so that's what we expect of our books.

But in the ancient world they didn't expect their books to be like that because they knew that these things were always being copied by Hand and that mistakes were always being made. So that the the very first copy of a book probably had mistakes, and then the person who copied that first copy Copied the mistakes and added some of his own mistakes.

And then that third copy was itself copied and its mistakes were replicated then down to the line and so now hold.

The phone there for a moment more oversimplification for the purpose of spin agenda. The. That that sounds and this is real common for people to misunderstand this that sounds like you got one Manuscript that then gets copied to another manuscript now that manuscript thing it copies this one this one Gets copied that one, and there's this this narrow line.

It doesn't work that way. This is one of the reasons why people are a little confused when? They they start studying this thing. Okay, the more ancient the manuscript the closer it is to the original right.

I'll think about that for a second. Let's let's think about Let's think about a manuscript that let's come up with two Two different manuscripts just theoretically, okay? Let's Say we have a manuscript that we can date fairly firmly To the year 500 all right, let's let's use nice round numbers here around 500.

Then let's say we have a manuscript that we can pretty well nail down to 1100 600 years after the 500 now in general terms in General terms it would seem that the manuscript written in 600 should carry more weight Than the one man is that was copied in 1100 simply because it's that much closer to the original right however.

It's not so much the date as the number of generations that exist between the original and that copy if the one copied in 500 is A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. While the one in 1100 is a copy of an even more ancient manuscript from 300 and Hence is only a copy of a copy.

Then the one 1100 actually should have more weight Than the one from 500 right so it's really the number of generations that exist. And there that's just just one aspect of it, but that's one. That's rather important.

You can't just simply go hey whoa. This one's from from the time of Nicaea, and this one's from 1000 therefore this one has to have that much more weight than the other One now obviously once you get into the situation.

And this is one of the big issues with with textual criticism that I again. I it keeps me from Going along with a lot of very conservative and even reform brethren. They tend to they tend to forget something simple about history and that is Greek as the language of theology faded out in the West fairly quickly Greek as the language of theology and transmission of the text scriptures was forced out in Palestine, North Africa by what.

The Islamic expansion starting you know with the death of Muhammad starting the middle of 7th century you have Islam Expanding all the way up toward Constantinople all the way across North Africa and up into into Spain until that that century of Islamic expansion 632 to 732 so obviously manuscript production in those areas and Manuscript production of Greek in those areas where Latin becomes language of theology is going to be diminished and therefore in those small areas left where Greek Remains the language Constantinople Byzantium the text type that was already prevalent that area is going to in later years be outrageously Overrepresented by later copies, but that doesn't buy any type of logical thinking have anything to do With what the original text actually read that's why you can't give The fact that you have the vast majority of manuscripts or of the Byzantine text type.

The kind of weight that certain people do it just I'm sorry historically. I can't see how you you get around those simple considerations. I've seen books. You know you've got Pickering's book with it's filled with mathematics and and all this stuff about how you know It just happens.

I'm sorry you cannot mathematically Deal with the human context of history in that way just I'm sorry It just doesn't work that in that fashion. And so all this stuff comes together, and this is why we have to study these things.

It's why I'm sorry simple believing housewife Simple believing pastor today there was a time 50 years 100 years ago. You could have said you know I'm not gonna get into all that stuff I'm not gonna worry about textual criticism, and you probably could have gotten away with it.

We don't live in a society where that's the case anymore. You've got Bart Ehrman's running around. You've got Muslim apologists running around you've got all these people running around. They're using technology to spread Misinformation and spun information even when it's when it's accurate information that spun information About the foundations of our faith, and we need to know how to respond.

That's why we have to study these things to a level that previous generations Probably did not have to study them to eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We'll continue with the airmen go to D dots and your phone calls right after this break.

It's all. You know. Self-denial some religious place.

The Trinity and the Forgotten Trinity

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book the Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching Leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Admit today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.

The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org. More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?

James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen.

Org.

Creation: Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

And welcome back to the dividing line. Let's go ahead and take our phone call before we continue on with Bart Ehrman.

Let's talk with Michael. Hi Michael. Hello. How are you, sir? I'm doing very well, sir.

Have a question about creation. When God created man, did he create him as a dichotomy or as a trichotomy? Oh.

Well, there are a third and more accurate option, uh, well you have. Those are the the primary systematic theology categories. You have those who hold to a dichotomous view and see man as flesh and and.

See soul and spirit as primarily Coterminous terms synonyms. And then you have others who would say no. You have body and then you have soul which they would identify as the mind and you have spirit which is different in the soul.

And.

Then you have all sorts of other discussions like tradition ism creationism as to the origination of man's soul whether it's a direct creation of God at conception or whether it's more natural than that and a natural result of reproduction and all sorts of things like that that when you first take systematic theology.

Everybody sits around and argues about stuff like that and you don't really accomplish much else. But anyways The important thing to remember is that these are convenient ways of describing Biblical categories that are not necessarily We need to be very careful to remember that in the Hebrew thought man is one that in in Western thought we tend to divide man up and we tend to Give in to sort of some Gnostic or manichaean ideas that you can do one thing in your spirit but your body does another and they're separate entities in that sense and we need to realize that that the idea of the Separation of the spirit from the body is very unnatural.

That's why resurrection has to involve the the physical body in some state because To to bring man back to that wholeness that he was created in so no matter what viewpoint you end up taking In regards to being a dichotomous or a trichotomous You need to be careful you don't take that to the point of truly cutting man up to where those things are separate from one another because I think that Would be a very unbiblical Perspective take but as far as being a trichotomous or dichotomous, I am a dichotomous.

I believe that there is a That that man is is body and spirits that there is a spiritual aspect of man the physical aspect of man. I think you find too many times the biblical writers utilizing Numa and Sukkot in such a way as to make them interchangeable so as to make that that distinction a Hardens that distinction difficult to maintain.

I know that Paul says that I wish it's your body soul and spirit and people say it's ah See, there's there you have the proof. Those are absolutely separate things. I think it just simply means the wholeness of man in that in that passage.

And so I don't think it's a super major issue unless someone really gets extremely focused upon saying well and some modern teachings it does cutting man up and and some of the spiritual warfare people get in some odd things along those lines, too, but You know, I was actually raised as a trichotomous then in college went.

I don't don't think I can Really substantiate that one any longer exegetically and so I adopted the dichotomous perspective and.

So that's what that discussion is all about. Okay, can you recommend a book that talks about there that might document?

Oh.

Any of your any of your systematic theologies? There's a are going to go through that Burkoff and Raymond and Grudem. They're all going to give you the various perspectives and the various passages that are utilized to substantiate that.