E-mail Questions

Opening Remarks and Questions on the Quran and the Canon

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 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Afternoon program is it is Thursday. You sure it's Thursday. All right, that's good. Hey, we're doing a number another jumbo DL because I have some pretty good questions here.

I wanted to get to. And this morning was asked something in channel that sort of made me Recognize that There was some stuff I needed to address as well. So we're gonna do we'll do that in the first half hour here up to four o 'clock.

Might take a break. I'll sort of let rich know if we want to take a break so I can Grab a drink or something like that and then we will dive back into the two debates we're following right now the friend is comas debate as well as the Slick Perkins debate and I might go slick Perkins first and then go back to Fernanda's come.

We'll see. We will see but we'll have another jumbo DL. Don't get used to it. But I've just got a lot of stuff to be covering. So Hopefully that's good thing for you after the program is over immediately after the program, right?

It will be immediately after the program, right? That's how we have it set up approximately Three seconds three seconds. Okay about three seconds after the program. We are going to play the Bible study from PR BC last evening I'd like to invite you to stick around listen to it.

It was a little unusual. It's not the normal kind of Bible study we have and especially if you would say that you hold to reform theology I I think that you would find it to be useful. It is up on sermon audio as well.

Yes, sir. Are we gonna call that the jumbo dividing-line bonus feature if you would like to do that? It works. I realize that you now doing the way back machine stuff have to come up with titles like that.

I really don't have to think about that too much myself very much. Anyways, I will be semi distracted today because we have a studio audience as well and and it's very difficult to get well-behaved studio audiences especially when they're Reformed Baptist and Reformed Baptist tend to be just the wildest people and so Mr. Figgies out there on his iPad.

Talking to people in channel and I can see it glowing reflecting in his I thought they they gave you former Navy SEALs. These this you know, like a skin thing. So if he wouldn't wouldn't really see you in the dark or something I'm not sure what that is but okay, he's not a former Navy SEAL, but he was in the engine room of a sort of a Submarine for a while and that would be I make you sweat a lot.

That's for sure. Right? Was it pretty pretty? Did it smell down there? Oh, yeah, really smelled bad, didn't it? So they put the people the strongest stomach down there. Is that the idea? Okay. Yeah. It's not the people who are the best with nuclear engines.

It's the people that don't have to throw up on the nuclear engines that go in the summer. Yeah, it's great that's wonderful. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Let's get to some of the questions have been sent in one of them Is addressed to me you came to my church a bit ago and shared much in a brief amount of time about Islam.

It's errors, etc. In particular I was struck by your discussion of how they got it wrong in the Quran. Many simple issues of theology and Revelation representing for instance The Trinity is Jesus the Father and Mary to name one I remember I would love to hear if you have run across another in particular if you give me further thought or discussion on it.

I was researching Ezra Nehemiah and Malachi and Came across a claim by al-badawi that the Quran claims the Jews called Ezra the Son of God and Messiah. Accompanied by miraculous raising from the dead and recitation of the law by heart I think it was in book nine of the Quran.

I know this is farcical but would love to hear a bit more in particular on how they approach this scholastically and ironically since I've found Several later European mainland non-islamic read German commentators referring to it to without much debate.

I would appreciate your time if you give it. Thanks for any comments your study. I've shared yet. The Quran does say the Jews Called Ezra the Son of God and Generally since I've I am unaware of any historical evidence of that whatsoever that would be contemporaneous or relevant.

Generally, the excuse that I've heard is well. You know, we don't know every single group of Jews that existed out there and therefore there may have been one that had That kind of of a viewpoint or something like that.

Obviously if I ever got to listen to a Jewish debate with a Muslim, I'm sure that question would come up. But it's not a real major issue that I've brought up because the fact that it could just simply be dismissed as well.

You know there it might have been just some small group or something like that. Even though if it was a small group of Jews that did that then could it be a small group of Christians? That had the views that the entire Quran attributes to all Christians.

That becomes the question at that point and I'm not really sure exactly how that to that would be handled the next one I thought I Have to Remind myself all the time that we constantly have new folks coming in.

And so when I encounter questions that I've addressed many many times in the past you've got to understand. Sometimes it's difficult for me to remember where I've addressed a question if I've done us.

You know I remember doing seminars at all sorts of different contexts and sometimes it all starts mishing and mashing together in your brain. As to where you've talked about these things or not. We've got a lot of folks coming in have not listened to you know, the Wayback Machine or read.

For some reason we have folks who will listen to the program but don't read any of my books. For example where I lay out a lot of the foundational issues in regards to scriptural authority and the Trinity and things like that and so.

The Council of Nicaea and the Canon of Scripture

Here is a question that has to do with the subject of the Canon. These are issues I've addressed many times before but evidently need to address. Once again, I understand scripture bears its own authority as it is God's very word or God breathed as Paul says.

Although when talking to unbelieving friends they mentioned that quote the gospel of Luke only got in the Canon by one vote and quote. Now I've tried to look up this claim about the gospel of Luke only getting him by one vote.

But can't find any information on the internet about it. Well. The internet is not yet the repository of all human knowledge. And in fact, the reality is that the internet is repository of I think much more of human foolishness than it is human knowledge in many ways.

But the reason that you will not find anything about the gospel of Luke getting in by one vote is because it's bogus it's. It's silly. It's it's anyone who knows anything about church history at all knows that that's just outrageously silly and yet there are lots of people who will Hear one person say something and then they'll repeat it as if it's a fact and so on and so forth there is no such thing as a Council that took a vote on what books got in the New Testament and It's gonna say later on at the bottom of this email.

It says and also when and how exactly were the Gospels and the non Pauline books accepted as God breathed. I believe it was finalized the Council of Nicaea, but I'm not exactly sure. There's a I would highly recommend to our questioner finding a little article I wrote for the CRI Journal I don't know how long ago now called what really happened at the Council of Nicaea if you google that phrase.

What really happened to Council Nicaea or even if you search for it in my blog? I'm sure I've got the link to it there, too. It's not on our website it's on CRI's website, but Let me let me once again say this this is one of my pet church history peeves the Council of Nicaea had absolutely positively nothing to do with the canon of scripture.

The Mormons will tell you that and the the Muslims will tell you that and every group under the Sun will tell you that. The the Council of Nicaea had something to do with with with the canon of scripture.

The reality is from a church history perspective. The Canon Council Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the subject did not address it. Did not bring it up did not debate it was not relevant at the Council of Nicaea whatsoever.

And all I gotta do and someone says all the councilors you could you give me a single? primary source that says that and In fact if you want to go back. Yeah, thank you Raz equip org slash article slash what dash really dash happen dash at dash and I see a Is that an end dash there's no HTML or anything like that after that, okay.

Well, that's that's it's out there. So you take a look at it. The the issue of the Canon actually comes up after that if you go to my youtube channel and Look for one of my early responses to Abdullah al-Andalusi.

They put up a video the Muslims did talking about the Council of Nicaea and allegedly people who were there. Who talked about how the Canon was was formed? Well, I just I point out that like the people they said were there had been dead, you know.

Hadn't you know were born 350 some odd years everybody who has been Nicaea was dead by the time they were born and stuff like that and and Just just tore it apart. In fact, they they pulled that they pulled that video down.

So you can't even go and look at their original video anymore because it disappeared. As well, it should have the Council Nicaea had absolutely positively nothing to do with the canon of scripture. There was no council where people sat around with smoke-filled rooms, you know.

The way we think about how the debt ceiling deal went through, you know. Well, we'll give you this if you'll give you that well, I'll take a Matthew and you take a Peter, you know. This kind of a situation it just didn't happen.

That is not how the Canon was determined if we want to use the term determined in that way in any way shape or form. And so there wasn't any votes. The only time I know of any discussion about the canonicity of a book is in regards to the Old Testament and It was about Esther and it wasn't a situation where okay after we have our discussion now.

We're gonna have a vote even that wasn't a vote situation. So it just didn't happen. That's not how the can was formed. It's a naive view of how the can was formed. So anybody rang around says well Gospel Luke only got in by one vote is absolutely positively.

Playing in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with history itself. Now, of course I think we can sort of blame ourselves. For why this stuff becomes so popular because who talks about church history in church anymore?

Most people most of our regular listeners know that years ago. I did a whole series in church history. It's still bopping around out there. In fact, I think Razor's kiss has it had it someplace. An mp3 had converted all the this is back in the old real audio days.

And I think I think RK converted all over to mp3 and has it hiding someplace my entire Thing and we have it too in mp3. No. Oh. You need to ask him how oh, okay. Yeah, that would be a good thing to do because we have some real audio stuff that we need to convert to anyway.

You know, we've done it and I started to talk about church history, but I understand most people church history. What's what is that? And and people can get away with all right. It goes on to say and it kind of weakens one of my arguments.

When talking to unbelievers about knowing scriptures God breathed through the objective testimony of the Holy Spirit Jesus says my sheep will hear my voice. Because that would mean nearly half the Christians that decided the book of Luke Should not be in the canon obviously didn't think it was God breathed and if I claim the testimony of the Holy Spirit is objective.

Which I do a certain regardless. How can that be? Well Many problems with you with your argument here, brother yes, Jesus says his sheep will hear his voice, but that does not make that an objective individual witness and the the Canon of Scripture was not determined By oh, well 90 of everybody said yes.

And so the other 10 just weren't listening to the Spirit well enough or something along those lines. I'm not saying the Spirit was not involved, but I would highly recommend to your reading a little book I wrote called scripture alone.

Which has a section on the canon and attempts to present an understanding of the canon. That comes from a theological perspective first and foremost rather than just looking back at what happened in the history of the church or something along those lines and so It is it is not the case that there was a vote and If it was a case that it was 51 to 49 Then you would have a situation where well Why didn't the 49 hear the same objective revelation of the Holy Spirit?

No, the Holy Spirit deals with people in mass. He deals with the church as a group. He provides guidance to the church. That is directly commensurate to the What? What the book? They can they can find the book.

We don't need I don't need numbers out. No, I don't know not the books. Someone something else. Yeah, they can find the books. The the early church God put out the same amount of effort to make sure that the church had the canon of Scripture as he provided in the Inspiration of Scripture because he had a purpose for Scripture.

He had a purpose in giving the church the scriptures and therefore he safeguarded them and it wasn't a matter of well He he had to give some type of a revelation To 51 to make sure to get the right the right scriptures into our hands that just isn't isn't the case.

He goes on to say another hole in this argument is the fact that John 8 1 through 11 Could very well have been added as our earliest Greek manuscripts show. Well, this it's actually done 753 through 811 The pericope adultery the story of the adulterous woman, and I don't think it really is any there is any question That this text was added at a much later period of time.

Especially to me the greatest evidence of this is the fact that in a number of manuscripts. It appears in the Gospel of Luke and When you have a story that moves from one gospel to another depending on what manuscript you're in and Doesn't appear basically in the first half millennium of the church.

Big issue, but what's more important here is now we're confusing textual critical issues with canon issues. Because the Gospel of John first of all was never questioned by anybody Anywhere as far as I know it is the earliest Attested gospel that we possess and so it's canonical status was Thoroughly established long before the pericope adultery ever even appeared in its pages.

So there is an act an akron is tick element here that a later Accretion to the book could have something to do with some spiritual testimony as to the canonization of the book. That's again Why we sort of have to know a little something about church history and a little something about the time frames that we're working on here.

People might say if the Testament Holy Spirit is objective Then why wasn't that caught or how come the Christian body as a whole couldn't tell again? This is this takes us into another interesting area that I don't think that the writer is going into but that some reformed people have gone into and that is the concept of an ecclesiastical text where the church somehow becomes via a Leading of the Holy Spirit not only a determiner of canon, but then a determiner of the text itself and I don't know if it's still out there.

It's been a while since I searched for it. But I bet you it is out there in some form. The written debate if you can call it a debate given that I only had I think if I recall This was this was pre Twitter, but it's it's sort of it's sort of prophetically looked forward to Twitter.

I was asked 96 97 something like that to do a written debate with Doug Wilson on The subject of the ecclesiastical text he had embraced the folks up in Moscow had embraced this ecclesiastical text theory that basically is is TR only ism, but it's based upon a Theological theory that since this was the text received by the church therefore it should be the text that we stick with and of course my My whole argument there is but it's not the text received by the church in the first place.

But that's another issue and I think that came out if you search for it. It was in credenda agenda. So I think probably somewhere on the credenda agenda website in the old archives. You'll find that debate that Douglas Wilson.

I did and you'll discover that whenever. And and the reason I say this presaged Twitter was we had if I recall correctly 100 words per round 100 words it's better than 140 characters. It's it's probably about five or six tweets.

But you still have to be extremely Focused in what you're what you're doing and use an economy of words and Whenever I would ask specific questions about specific text he couldn't answer that because This theory sounds great in generals.

It just doesn't work well in particulars. That's that's the problem with it and That's sort of the direction this is going as well. I couldn't the Holy Spirit or the Church of the body tell about textual variation.

And Since the vast majority of Christians don't even know what textual variation is. How could they have a meaningful? I mean, are we really are we really gonna put? Let's are we are really gonna put Romans 5 1.

There's a textual variant Romans 5 1 it's the difference between the indicative and the subjunctive of ecumen. Let us have or we have are we gonna put that out on a table In the middle of a church service and have everybody read it and then go into a prayer room and pray about it and then take a vote on it is That how you determine the variant reading at Romans 5 1 that there be some people who would think that sounds like a really good idea.

Rather than looking at the manuscripts and looking at the internal evidence and stuff like that. No Goes on says now I haven't engaged any unbelievers who have been astute enough to present such an argument.

But if that was presented to me I think I'd be hard-pressed to be able to rebut such an argument on the foundation of my assertion the testimony of Holy Spirit is Objective. Well, I'm not sure what This writer means by the testament Holy Spirit being objective.

What what do you mean by that? I The work of the Holy Spirit is it can be objective in the sense that he can do things such as inspire Scripture. But I'm I'm not. It sounds like what's being said as well the testimony of the Holy Spirit to individual Christians in regards to the canon of Scripture is Somehow objective and I I've certainly never made that Argument.

I I think that the work of the Holy Spirit is objective in the sense that he has objectively brought about the proper canon of Scripture to accomplish God's purposes, but I'm I'm not sure what this test what this a testimony amounts to and of course as I said at the end isn't also when and How exactly were the Gospels and on Pauline books accepted as God breathed?

Well the very form of the question begs the historical reality because it is assuming there is a mechanism an external mechanism derived by the church whereby they sought to Certify books as God breathed because it asks accepted as God breathed as if the church has the right to do that as if the church has the right To even define such things which the church never has had that's where it says I believe is finalized the council and I see it, but I'm not exactly sure no Much more complex history of this you have the Muratorian fragment.

You have the development of 39th festival letter of Athanasius and and all the other things. There's a discussion of these things on our YouTube channel as well as in Scripture alone If you want to really look into that, but the can of Scripture did not come about.

You don't that that's that's where by the way, one of these the real problems with these lists you see on Websites where you have a date and then this happened and When it comes to theological developments and issues like that, it almost never worked that way.

It didn't just happen that way. Now that greatly oversimplifies the actual process of church history itself now. It wasn't gonna spend quite as much time on that because there was one other thing I wanted to do.

Lexical Semantics and the Meaning of Words in the New Testament

And I only have about six minutes to do it in Some of the comments that I've made in regards to how oneness Pentecostals abuse lexical sources have Confused people and one of our I believe British friends and channel this morning was was complaining a little bit basically saying that I had discouraged him in Making the comments that I did and basically saying well look it's pretty obvious.

These folks don't know the original languages and therefore they're abusing the original languages by looking up lexicons and saying well this source and this is the most Authoritative source out there and it says this and what I was pointing out.

Is that majority of the time these folks are Abusing and misusing The The lexical sources because they don't understand how language works. What I want to do very very briefly. Hopefully this will be somewhat helpful though I could I could go long long long on this and I and I just I just can't in the time period that we have.

What I'd like to do is suggest a book to you if you are serious in your study of The meaning of words in the New Testament is by dr Moises Silva, and it's entitled biblical words and their meanings. Now figure you're you're you're distracting your friend next it's sort of like in a class here, you know.

He's trying to listen. He wanted to know what that book was, but you were talking to him. It's just man. I just it's just got to watch the kids all the time. It's it's hard. Yeah biblical words and their meaning.

I actually I think the name has changed Since the I read it in one of its first editions many many moons ago in in college and seminary. But Moises Silva is the author author biblical words me. It will introduce you to what's called lexical semantics.

And what it did for me is that it made It made lexicons understandable. Because it made language understandable to me. We Westerners have a very mechanistic Almost forensic view of language which has advantages, but it also has disadvantages.

Especially when the language was written by people who didn't have that same kind of perspective that we do At the same time. It's very important even in English. One of the errors that people have is they look up a word in a lexicon go ah, it means this for example, look up the word logos in Bauer Dunker Arndt and Gingrich the largest.

Well, it's not the largest but largest single volume lexicon we've got going right now one of the most one of the most popular. There are many definitions given. There are many uses noted because logos Has a wide semantic domain that means if you were to think of it as a large circle and the Meaning of that word in any given context can fall within the parameters of this large circle and it's the context and usage and author and The surrounding terms that will determine where in that semantic domain.

The meaning is to be now if you just go to a lexicon like oh, I'm just gonna take well The first meaning here is the most popular and therefore that's the base meaning and therefore that's what I'm gonna say.

It means in every place that's found in the New Testament. You are abusing the language. Because logos can mean everything from word to thing to matter. It has a large wide semantic domain and if you don't look at the contextual usage and You force a meaning on it from someplace else.

You may not even be close to what the original author intended and We will hear at one point. Mr Perkins quote the the BDAG and and say it it talks about a thought in the mind as If in John 1 1 therefore, that's what it means.

What you always have to check is even when a lexicon like BDAG Gives a biblical reference indicating that from their perspective. This is where in the semantic domain that particular verses that is Interpretive on their part that's got no more authority than any other interpretive commentary does.

What the range of meanings in a lexicon should do is provide you with the semantic Domain the range of meanings possible for that particular word that's what's important to understand and It's always important if if that lexicon actually gives the reference at least you can say well the editors of Such and such a lexicon says it means this that's one of the things that's nice about the low Anita Greek lexicon is it's based upon semantic domains.

And so you'll find the same word in numerous different entries based upon semantic domains. And they'll let you know it might be in this one here might be in that one there. You have to look at the context make those decisions for yourself.

It's a whole lot more difficult to abuse low Anita in that way than it is some of the others because the way that's it's laid out based upon semantic domains and so When you're looking words up in a lexicon realize that what the lexicon is to give to you is a range of meanings and Then it's your job not their job.

It's your job to determine via the context Where in that semantic domain the meaning is to be found for that particular phrase word? usage context sentence paragraph whatever but to hear people Quoting a lexicon saying it says it means this here.

And they're not even actually looking at the entry where the lexicon itself cites the verse. When you hear that you know you're dealing with someone who has no earthly idea How to actually accurately use these things and I realize that Bible works and accordance and logos makes all this stuff available to us all.

This information available to you and what's scary is that that that convinces a lot of people they actually do know the languages. And I've said many times a little Greek is a dangerous thing. Because a lot of people go well I just put my I put my cursor right here on this word and a box opens up and it tells me It means this.

Well, I just put my cursor on logos and a little box opened up. And it says noun masculine singular nominative word speech message book volume well, which one fits here. Well, I can't tell me that and if I put it on AIM down the way and it tells me third singular imperfect indicative I I've got to know what imperfect means.

I need to know something about tense mode and voice in Greek. I Need to know something about lexical forms and roots and all sorts of stuff like that to make heads out of tails and So even having the information in front of us does not guarantee that we will use it in an appropriate fashion.

So just some things I wanted to share with everybody. Right off the top at that at that point. We'll go ahead and skip over The break if you don't mind, we'll we'll take one. Maybe yeah, we'll go ahead and take one at the bottom of the hour.

Because by then I'll definitely need to do more than just swig a few sips of this propel fitness water We're gonna need a break now Yeah.

Advertisements and Program Transition

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 Amid 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.

Hello everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered Self-help program the need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.

I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior. We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme Justification is the heart of the gospel.

In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and Theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen org.

I Certainly feel like it there is absolute evidence that you should never seek to hum while drinking. And that means my ventriloquism gig is over. That's it. I'll be tweeting the King James only group right now.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, exactly struck deaf again, but deaf dumb straight dumb dumb struck dumb. Just that he pretty much figure you were already dumb. Yeah, I kind of dumb. Yeah, but this is a different guy.

But I wasn't talking about King James only. Isn't there. So only the one that's Pentecostals could get me on that. Oh, that's good point but I don't think they want to be with Gail Rippling or much anyways, so.

That's that's great so now I get to use the cough button. All through the rest of the program until that little thing clears down there that's that's just really great. Well, anyways, that's alright I'll at least be able to turn the microphone off once in a while while we're listening to.

The debates took place between Roger Perkins and Matt slick on The subject of oneness theology we are in the middle. Well, actually the very beginning of Rogers opening if I don't let him say more. Whenever you get to anything that Roger Perkins has to say, so let's get back to it.

Each with their own will each with their own mind.

Now I want to I want to address that because this is gonna come up many many times. Hebrews chapter 5 verse 7 is the the text that is being utilized there and Notice the way it was utilized. He prayed in the days of his flesh and then the interpretation.

Was that what the text was saying is he was praying from his flesh and Hence that's the fleshly side of Jesus praying to the divine side of Jesus, but is that what he says? He was five five. So also Christ Did not exalt himself to be made a high priest but was appointed by him who said to him.

By him who said to him. Who said to Jesus you are my son today. I have begotten you. Well, that would be the father so a distinction of Persons, but this was said before the incarnation. So I'd have to say well, it's just a prophecy.

You're my son today. I've begotten you and he says also another place. You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek priest forever. You are a priest forever see in oneness theology. The father's not a priest forever after the order Melchizedek is he but Jesus is but Jesus has to be two persons.

So you clearly have two persons in view in Hebrews 5 5 and 6. But not in in oneness theology. Because the Son is not an eternal person. The Son is a human nature. The Son is a human body. That then is the context that takes us to verse 7 which says in the days of his flesh Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and He was heard because of his reverence.

Now that says nothing about Jesus praying from his flesh is. Talking about of course, it's looking back on the time of Jesus's incarnation during his earthly sojourn. And he offered up prayers and supplications to who to the father.

This doesn't say his flesh prayed to his divine side this this view of Jesus as two persons not one person but two persons just makes a mishmash of The New Testament presentation. That's why this viewpoint has been rejected historically so.

With loud cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death. So are you saying that the fleshly side of Jesus? Was praying to the divine side that could save the fleshly side from death and He was heard because of his reverence.

What does that mean? Well, some people say oh, what do you mean? He was he was heard. Jesus wasn't heard. He died. But he was resurrected and it's his resurrection that demonstrates. He was not left in Sheol.

He did not see corruption so on so forth. It is So painfully obvious it was in Hebrews chapter 5 is well. What you have all through the book of Hebrews a clear distinction between the father and the son.