Bassam Zawadi and Calls

Opening Remarks, Travel Plans, and the Upcoming Debate with Bassam Zawadi

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 welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. The only dividing line of the week unless we can talk somebody else into it unless we have a volunteer step forward and say I'll. I will host the dividing line on on Thursday, but What's that Craig Wray.

Where did that come from my goodness, I mean how long has it been since we saw a Craig Wray it's been. I'll never forget when I got my first Alpha Omega watchdog committee Letter from from Craig Wray and it was the the heading on the letter was made in magic marker and.

But yeah, I remember that but I really hadn't thought of old Craig and since probably last Last Easter pageant, I would say What is Easter this year? I don't know either. We're gonna find out because maybe we'll have to show it back up out there and The King James only guys didn't really show up last year.

So maybe they got bored. They may be finding somebody else to bother these days. Who knows? Anyway, that's not what I was gonna be talking about today. Welcome to the dividing line not gonna be here on Thursday.

That's how we got sidetracked. Maybe we can find Vicki and and channel says she'll do it. Barry will do it. Something like that. We should get Rosie to do it. I think Rosie Rosie would do a great job.

Starting off. I'm not sure what she'd do the rest the hour, but Rosie on there and something like that. That would be that would be good. I Have Jamin want to talk about stuff like that this early in the morning.

I have no earthly idea. It's like come on. Can't we just talk about that and channel and leave it there anyway? Got stuff going on this week next week and the week after in the United Kingdom. We'll try somehow at some point to do a dividing line.

It won't be easy because I'm moving from place to place or a lot of traveling. Since I go from London up to Dublin and then Dublin over to Glasgow and Glasgow back down to London. It's not gonna be as easy to find a time to do something, but we'll try to remember remember what happened last year.

When I was in in London, in fact, I was in London in late February last year and Remember remember what happened then that was that was when we posted the first post. Where I had corresponded with a certain Ergon Kanner on the subject of his claims to have debated Shabbir Ali and that happened.

I received the note from Mr. Khan. When I was between planes I was in Philadelphia getting ready to board for Heathrow and that's when I got the email and At the time I couldn't download the file to listen to it.

I didn't have enough time. And so it was when I got to London got checked into my hotel. That I listened to the file realized. Yes. Indeed. He had claimed that and that's when I wrote to Shabbir Ali. Shabbir Ali responded within 20 minutes and that's when I wrote to Ergon Kanner and the all all the rest of it as they say is history.

And so yeah get Ergon to host a program. That would be interesting. Yeah, that would be Very interesting. We'd have Ergon and Shabbir on at the same time. That would be hi. Nice to meet you. Mr Dr. Kanner never met you before but I hear you say you've met me.

We debated, Nebraska. Okay. So that's what started it all but even then even then it was only over the next it was pretty much in March that people Started going, you know, you know These dates don't match these things don't this doesn't work.

There's some problems here and Well, we all know what happened from that point onward one of the tasks that will be mine over in the United Kingdom on The 12th of February right toward the end of my time there Will be to debate Bassam Zawadi on whether Islam misrepresents Christianity Especially in its sacred book Called the Quran and we will be looking at that I want to spend a few moments at the beginning of the program today listening to a few more statements from Bassam and Responding to them.

Once again, I have used my Sonocent audio notetaker program, which I'm gonna have to keep watching it. It would be nice if this would show up in Mac sometime, too but It's a Windows program. But hey, you know, I could probably install it using wine or One of those other programs that runs those those crazy window things, but anyway, I wanted to address a couple of His statements in regards to the deity of Christ Not the entire thing but actually, I'm gonna skip down to I Think it's this one right here.

Is this one? I'm looking well, that's just it. No, I think it's this one here I'm I'm gonna try this one. Let's try I Have all these pretty colors on my screen. Let's try this one. I think This is the statement.

I'm looking for we will find out Well, let's let's listen.

Misrepresenting Christianity and the Need for Consistency

You know one thing that means that we were concerned about regarding Christianity was that we were afraid that you guys might because many Muslims have misconceptions about what Christianity is and We wanted to make sure That you guys don't have these misconceptions because a lot of Muslims they might think.

Okay Christians believe All I have to do is sit back and believe Jesus died for me and I could go and party and do whatever I want. Christians don't believe that. So you have to make sure that you don't have misconceptions about their faith because if you talk to them and This is what you think of them.

They're gonna say this guy doesn't know anything about my faith. So the way I want to know.

So there was another statement later on and maybe I'll run across it play it later on. We're said something similar and that is you know, I want to applaud Bassam for seeking to encourage his listeners to have an accurate knowledge of what they are criticizing and We all you know.

When when you end up disagreeing with someone about their faith. The first thing is to accuse somebody of just not understanding it or misrepresenting him and. Fully understand that I fully understand how it works and look on both sides of this particular divide it is difficult to Stand from the audience say and say Muslims believe.

Now. Are you talking about a Sunni? Are you talking about a Shiite? Are you talking about some of the smaller groups? That the Sunnis wouldn't even say are Muslims. I mean, I've listened to well-known Sunni scholars.

Just ripping on the Shiites just just accusing them of not really being Muslims at all. And of course you hear that from the other direction as well when you listen to the Shiites. With much more passion normally from the Shiites and then you've got the Druze and you've got the Ahmadi and and you've got all these these groups and and Look, it is hard on our side of the fence here to to really figure out exactly where Everybody stands and even amongst the Sunnis you've got all these different groups with different emphases and and then you throw the Sufis in for the fun of it and and it can get rather complicated and Let's let's be honest from the other direction.

Can you imagine what it's like to be raised as a Muslim without almost any knowledge of? Christianity whatsoever and looking over at what we've got. I mean you see the you see the Pope and you see Roman Catholicism and the Mormon missionaries go by and they talk about Jesus and the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door and they talk about Jesus and Once in a while you stumble across TBN on cable.

And the the result look folks, you know, we sort of have to bend over backwards I think To To try and it's this isn't naturally easy for us to do but we have to try to recognize that a lot of folks even folks who oppose us and Who oppose gospel preaching?

We cannot be 100 certain that they really have a clear understanding of what the truth is in the midst of all the babble that's out there and So, you know, we have to ask them for patience when we you know I I try to I try to normally couch my presentations in language such as the vast majority of Sunni Muslims Will say and I'll honestly tell folks.

I I don't really I Don't know she ism the way I should I've got a few books haven't gotten through them yet maybe if I could get them on my Kindle or something get through a little faster, but You know, it's it is hard To get a beat on everything.

And so I try to say well the vast majority of most will say something like rather just simply saying well Muslims say this. Because you'll always run across an exception of the rule somewhere along the line.

But the same time, you know when you when you look at their responses to us. We need to try to realize that you know for a lot of them. They look at Protestants as just stepchildren of the real Christianity and they see remember what happened when when?

Ratzinger Benedict the 16th quoted from a medieval writer about the violence of Islam and You had violence all over the place. It's a sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. These folks are violent well, we are not and then they get violent and you know, but they look at Rome as The very representative of Christianity now at the same time a lot of them once they start doing some readings start going, you know I don't see anything in the New Testament about this stuff that Rome teaches, but that's that's that's another issue.

So I do appreciate the statement that you know, we need to accurately represent what the other side is saying as Best you can. Sometimes that is that is difficult to do. Let's continue to back up a little bit in the lecture actually I want to address some of the statements that the psalm made about the deity of Christ.

And then probably after the half-hour mark or something like that. We'll get to our Get to our calls which are interestingly on a wide variety of subjects.

The Deity of Christ in the Gospels and the Problem of Selective Reading

Did Jesus claim divinity. Now, let's look at some of Jesus's statements in the Gospels Matthew 24 36. This is what Jesus said. No one knows about that day or hour meaning the day of judgment. Not even the angels in heaven nor the Son is referring to himself nor the Son, but only the Father.

So the only person the only one who's omniscient the only one who knows when the day of judgment would come is the father. He excluded himself. Now, what are they going to say? They're going to say well you see Jesus had two natures.

So when he became man that also means he became limited. So that's why Jesus didn't know when the last day was. Yeah, but Jesus is God. How did he know in the last week? That's because he became a man.

So he let go of his attributes of being omniscient being all-knowing. But then you could argue back well if the Trinity is there then you also have the Holy Spirit. How come the Holy Spirit didn't know about the last day the Holy Spirit didn't become a man.

So how come only the father knows of the last day? This one is the clearest verse.

Now actually, I think that last statement is Introducing the next one. We're gonna listen to maybe I could be wrong about that. We'll see here in a moment, but we've we've all heard this text raised over and over again in regards to well, Jesus can't be God because Jesus is not omniscient and Bassam recognizes that.

Most responses to this focus upon the fact that Jesus was incarnate that there was some kind of self-limitation In regards to the incarnation in regards to for example the the veiling of his glory the exercise of divine power and things like that, but what caught my attention is I was listening to this again was you know, what I would like to ask is again concerning the consistency of My Muslim friends and their use of Scripture.

Whenever they cite texts that they think support their position. They they never bother to address the the textual issues or the textual backgrounds. There is a textual variant in this text. Nothing was mentioned about that but what's more is Does Bassam really believe that Jesus said this?

Did you notice a little something this is this is where. You know, I probably heard this on how many times before it struck me the the irony of a Muslim citing this text and The irony is what is the name of the Sun here?

What how does how does the Sun refer to himself as the Sun and isn't that the very thing that Islam denies to Christ that he's the Son of God and That he uses this language of himself. Or does he use this language of himself, but does just but doesn't mean Son of God by it.

I mean I Challenged Bassam in an email and and I decided not to pursue the email exchange because they just get bigger and bigger and bigger and they just They just eat all your time up but I I had just I had once again raised what's what strikes me as a as a tremendous inconsistency in Islamic thinking and that is Muslims will accept the non Historical ascription of words to Jesus found in the Quran and and from any historians perspective the words of the Quran When relating to Jesus are non-historical, how can they be anything else?

They don't claim that the Quran was written at the time of Christ. They don't claim that it's based upon documents that go back to the time of Christ. The words of Jesus recorded in the Quran have to be taken as direct revelation period end of discussion.

There's there's there's no claim that well, you know Muhammad had access to these records that had been Written long ago and and nobody else had them it. No, there's there's nothing like that. It's divine revelation and So by divine revelation Jesus speaks in the Quran and these words are not historical they they do not go back to the time of Jesus and Yet they'll accept that because well, this is the Word of God now if I Respond almost any criticism of what the Bible says by saying well, it's just the Word of God you have to believe what it says.

Then they're like this scholar says this and this scholar says that's uncertain and and we can cut Paul up into pieces and John up into pieces and. And we can put this verse against that verse and we can follow all those scholars, but when it comes to our book We won't apply that standard in any way shape or form and I just pointed out I had gone back to one of the earliest papyri manuscripts and I had pulled out a graphic of Words from Jesus and John 8 58.

Where he uses the the ego I mean phrase of himself and I said, you know here we have in the earliest manuscripts we possess of the New Testament this claim of Jesus which which is so clearly a claim of deity and yet Someone will believe what is written 600 years later that could never be ascribed to the historical Jesus at all and The basis upon which they reject the historicity and accuracy of the first is Completely inconsistent with the basis upon which they accept the accuracy of the second.

If they were to apply the same type of quote-unquote scholarly standards. That a critic of the New Testament applies that leads him to end up questioning the validity of New Testament text then The entirety of everything Jesus says in the Quran would not even be put on the table for examination it's not even in the historical realm from their perspective and That was the the inconsistency that that I saw there and I think there's an inconsistency here, too.

Well, it says right here in Matthew 24 these and how do you know these words are accurate in light of? Your criticisms of every other text where Jesus is called God. Where's where's the consistency here, that's that I think I have been consistent in calling for consistency and You know I don't mind at all being challenged as to whether I am being Consistent in the standards that I'm using and I would I would expect the psalm to challenge me On the 12th to be consistent in my exegesis of the Quran and I will seek to be so but at the same time I'm I'm going to be challenging the psalm and and I what I really hope this debate is on the 12th, by the way is is not a High-speed talking throw everything but the kitchen sink out type of thing I want to engage with the psalm.

I want to look at a limited number of texts in the Quran because there's only a limited number to look at in the first place but even more so be focused upon the main issues and And basically ask the question If the Quran is going to condemn me to an eternity in hellfire.

For believing what the Apostles of Jesus Christ taught and that's what it does. Then I need to have some reason I have to need to have some basis for a believing that the author of the Quran knew what the disciples of Jesus taught and Be Understood what it is that Christianity is actually teaching.

I need to have that I mean if you're gonna believe a document that comes along 600 years later with no no historical connection at all To the events of Jesus life to the early church anything like that then There's a there's a burden of proof That needs to come along there.

You don't just start there. Is there has since this book talks about? The Torah in the Angel Since it talks about Moses and it talks about Jesus and specifically says they were given revelations in which was light and guidance.

Well, that means this last one needs to stand up to scrutiny this last revelation from the Islamic perspective needs to stand up to scrutiny. And the question is does it? Well, I.

I Don't think it does. Let's listen to the next objection and I think the strongest one and you will not find a proper response to this.

Jesus says this. Okay. Yeah that that preceding statement was about this. So I'm gonna back it up here. So here's here is the clearest Denial of the deity of Christ from Bassam's perspective.

This one is the clearest verse and I think the strongest one and you will not find a proper response to this. Jesus says this now, this is eternal life that they may know you he's talking to the father that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Notice how Jesus is telling the father you are the only true God and then he separates himself From the father. He's clearly telling the father. You are the only true God now. What does the Trinity teach?

The Trinity teaches the father is God the son is God the Holy Spirit is God. He can't say the father is the only true God. If you're saying the father is the only true God that means that the son is not God that the Holy Spirit is not God.

So you're gonna see ridiculous responses to this to this. They're gonna say the father is the only true God. The son is the only true God and the Holy Spirit is the only true God which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Well, they'll you see they believe that each person in the Godhead has a different role. The father's main role is that he has the authority. He would send the son God's the son to die for the sins of the world after that is done.

Anyone believes in that then God's the Holy Spirit will come and dwell inside of you to support you. So each one has his role you see. So now we see in John 17 3 that Jesus clearly states that the father is the only true God.

Now For quite some time. I've had a response to this up on YouTube. Back from my debate with Hamsa Abdul Malik in 1999 I do think that there is confusion on Bassam's part at this point we're later on going to hear some statements that seem to indicate a Continued confusion and a misunderstanding of the existence of divine persons the relationship of the divine persons.

There is a Somewhat of a reference I think in the statement that was in the response that was made to my own Assertions on this particular subject, but you'll notice that as is almost always the case when Muslims address this they only address verse 3.

They do not read it in context even though Bassam would say He will argue for example that In What is it the mark the Mark in passage where the rich young ruler comes up to Jesus? He says well, you've got to read the context always read the context that will refute their answers to to that.

But for some reason when it comes to John 17 He doesn't read the rest of the context and doesn't deal the fact that for example in verse 3 Jesus Well, not only again he recognizes who's who is he addressing here?

Why would he use terminology such as father and son father? The hour has come Glorify your son that the Sun may glorify you. I thought God didn't have a son. I thought the Quran said Len yellow while a mule it I thought that that there was fundamental to Islamic theology that Jesus would not use such things.

He's a mere razzle. He is not the Sun In the way that he's using this and that the Sun may glorify you since you have given him authority over all flesh to give eternal life to all Whom you have given him, so why not start with the beginning of the prayer?

Where Jesus is given the power? He has been given authority over. Oh, wait a minute. I thought Jesus was only sent to the Jews. Isn't that the Islamic perspective that Jesus is only sent to the Jews. He's just he's just the Jewish Messiah and yet Jesus says since you have given him authority over all flesh and What prophet is Given the authority and power to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

What prophet is given the people of God? I? Mean, I think you can argue on the basis of John 17 to that if you want to have eternal life. Then you have to be given by the father to the son. That's exactly what John 6 taught chapters earlier.

The themes continue and the themes of the centrality of Christ the salvation of God's people throughout all generations. Not just the Jewish people. So why not start there that really would seem to be?

The direction to go. But then you have the statement this is eternal life. That they know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent two parts in having eternal life knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ who's been sent by the only true God and of course the Islamic idea as well that since we assume Unitarianism and the father is the only true God that means that that Jesus can't be God.

So to have eternal life you have to know the only true God and a creature. Well, I suppose if John chapter 17 ended at verse 3. I suppose you could. You could you know? Try to make that argument but It doesn't end there.

I glorified you on earth having accomplished the work that you gave me to do and Now father glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. What mere prophet?

Shared in the very personal glory of God himself. Before his birth well again It would seem that if the psalm follows his own stated methodology He would need to deal with what comes before John 17 3 and what comes after John 17 3.

Especially it says this is the clearest one really Jesus is called son. He is given authority over all flesh. He's the source of eternal life. You have to know him to have eternal life and he pre-existed with the father in a glorious state before his birth.

Hmm. Is that really where you want to go? I? Don't I don't think so.

Jesus, the Father, and the Meaning of John 17

John 2017. Jesus said do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the father Go instead to my brothers and tell them I am returning to my father and your father to my God and your God.

How can a God have a God now? There's there's a statement. How can a God have a God? Well, if you're a Unitarian That's not possible. But if you are deriving your theology from the scriptures Then you have to notice what that you have one God Yahweh and you have three distinct persons described with that one name of Yahweh, which is why Christians believe in the Trinity.

And that incarnate one who came to earth took on human flesh and. That was my whole point and why I keep asking people when they raise objections like this. If God if if one of the divine persons became incarnate would that one incarnate one be an atheist?

Would he not have communion? with the father with whom he's had communion for eternity. Would he stop that communion. And. What is communion with God called when you are in the flesh? It's called prayer.

So Again just misunderstandings a lack of understanding of what's being criticized. Resulting in arguments that really are not arguments at all.

Why did Jesus say that he has a God. And again the responses that you're going to see to this? Sometimes don't don't just leave you speechless. You just don't know how to reply back to their response.

Because it's just so empty and shallow. You just have nothing to reply back. The son is the only true God, the father is the only true God. How are you going to reply back to this? It makes no sense. The point is to show that listen the verses that are clear the verses that I read under plain reading.

Show that Jesus is not God.

So here you have the claim. Well, these are I'm just giving the plain reading. Why not deal with all the texts where the plain reading clearly indicates that Jesus is God and then understand it all consistently.

I Creator is Yahweh the use of God if you're gonna quote John 2017 quote John 2028 Where Thomas says my Lord and my God and Jesus identifies that as a statement of faith could any Muslim prophet Be called Lord and God and then say that's a statement of faith.

Of course not and so what's normally said? Oh, well, those are corruptions. Well of John 2028 has been corrupted. How do you know John 2017 hasn't been corrupted? Consistency consistency consistency. I was looking for it Again these these all just demonstrate a misunderstanding of the Psalms part of what the doctrine of the Trinity is.

Which is unfortunate. How can God pray to God? Well, that was the son communicating with the father a communication which coinage on one one had been going on eternally Between two divine persons and continues in the incarnate state.

Callers on Circumcision, Covenant Theology, and the New Covenant Sign

Since we have so many phone calls. I'm gonna go ahead and stop there. I had a few more queued up, but go ahead and stop there and Maybe continue on after we get back from London. I don't know. Maybe we'll have more important things to talk about we get back.

I don't know. We will see but many people have been calling 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 where are we going? There's so many here. I can't I can't even tell what. Well, I guess we'll get Jamin out of the way first here he called in first so Jamin I'm not gonna continue the conversation from channel last night if that's what we're looking for.

But if it's different subject we can go with it. Well, no, I didn't expect to continue the conversation, but I did have a question. This is this is something I tried to get in last week. But I wasn't available, but I was just reading through Raymond systematic theology and it's you know, it's obviously a wonderful work but there was just a footnote that I wanted your thoughts on and It was on page 937.

He says. So closely connected is the sign circumcision and the spiritual reality it signifies. The verities of the covenant of grace that Stephen is willing to describe the Abrahamic Covenant by its sign he states that God gave the covenant of circumcision acts 7 8 and I guess reading that first time.

I felt like he kind of just turned the meaning of the text upside down, but Is he talking about Stephen in in act 7. He gives a citation 7 8. Yeah so you see you're talking that you're talking to circumcised people who are clearly unregenerate and yet the.

The point is that the sign is is so closely related to the reality. It would it would seem that the reason for the statement is to bring further judgment upon men who were obviously so enamored with the sign that they didn't have the spiritual aspect of it themselves, but I don't have Raymond in front of me to read the context or anything.

So I you know it again all it all goes back to what is the fulfillment of that sign in the New Covenant? I believe it's regeneration. Richard Brassellus's article on Colossians 2 Demonstrating that it's regeneration.

That's a fulfillment of circumcision circumcision. Not baptism. I think is very very useful. I may just ask Richard if I can just Post that someplace. I know it's in our BTR, but I it may be if it's available online someplace I want to be able to track it down for folks I just think it's it's it's very straightforward that the superiority of The New Covenant is found in the reality of the fact that those Those things that under the Old Covenant, but however you want to find that We're looking forward to greater fulfillment are found in the spiritual working of the Spirit of God and bringing about regeneration for all of those who are in the New Covenant and It's all it's all gonna keep devolving back to that.

We can we can chase rabbits all across the desert landscape out here in Phoenix. We want to. It all comes back to that that particular issue as far as I'm as far as I can see. Okay, so I mean the the Covenant of circumcision in this text is not to be lumped together with the Covenant of Grace.

Well, which Act 7 8. That's interesting. My log us won't sign anymore. That's that's that's great. Then I'll go to it in a different program here. I've never seen that happen before but I Live by technology die by technology, I suppose.

And he gave him the Covenant circumcision so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised it. What. So so he's saying that since there is Circumcision here. This means yeah, he says Stephen is willing to describe the Abrahamic Covenant by its sign.

Well, okay, so When when Paul Discusses Abraham as the father of the faithful in Romans 4 Why is it that Abraham it can only be the is the only one that can be described as the father of the faithful and not Isaac because Abraham had his faith and was justified before receiving the sign and Isaac and all the others would have received the sign prior to their justification.

So I You know Yeah, it you you can obviously utilize that that terminology, but what does that mean? Does does that somehow mean that that the sign is is? More important than the faith upon which the justification took place.

You know, I don't I don't see how that works. But anyway, okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, man. Yeah let's Got lots of people here. Let's go up to Aaron. Hi, Aaron. Hello, Aaron.

Yes, sir I just had a quick question. I know you said there's a lot of varied topics this I'm sure this is another. You know topic that you weren't expecting to discuss but I was talking with a seven-day Adventist a couple days ago slash debating with him and Basically, he asked me, you know where I can find.

You know the the evidence for the Evangelical Church throughout history and it really occurred to me how. Incredibly well, I guess you'd call it revisionist history as far as. You are certain Catholic programs and even you know.

Just with the seventh-day Adventist was telling me about certain people like the Albedenses and the Waldensians. And basically they smear them up and down the wall and say that you know. They were non-trinitarians and they had you know consolamentum, which was you know, their own specific sacrament that they relied on.

But one thing I realized I was looking for a book. Well, it's huge. So thank you for ever to actually read the whole thing. But I read a couple of statements of faith in the martyrs mirror. In creeds from the Albedenses and the Waldensians and I was shocked to see that they were utterly almost Identical to a typical evangelical statement of faith from today.

So I just didn't know if you had any comments or you know. If you could help out and clarify for people how you know, people are leading, you know Catholic for instance. You know Catholic apologetics or apologists rather and like I said my seventh-day Adventist friend on the phone.

You know, it's there like there's evidence there in the history. I'm a little confused. The seventh-day Adventist part here I understand Catholics and the Waldensians and Albedensians and so on and so forth.

Where is where the seventh-day Adventist coming from? How'd they get in here?

Well, yeah. And that's what I thought at first too because they for a lot of you know What they believe would appear on the surface to at least be, you know, uniform with the evangelical Christianity.

But basically he was telling me as far as the mixing of the covenants You're probably familiar that they do where basically you have to keep all the commandments to keep the Sabbath holy. And they try to present you with evidence to that of that down through history.

You know with the first churches and such so they try to claim the the Albigensians and Waldensians as well.

Well, not necessarily them. I mean, obviously, you know about the non-trinitarian Anabaptist sect and things like that. But basically he wasn't really concentrating on what he can prove for his faith for the or for seventh-day Adventism.

But he was trying to disprove what evangelical Christianity can you know claims as far as church history goes? You know by saying that there was no evangelical Christians there were not people who believe you were saved by grace alone through faith apart from works.

And if there were they were very spotty and I was shocked. But I read like I said all those creeds and I realized wow these guys believe almost identically to what we believe. Yeah.

The the problem is in all those situations. You're you're dealing with fragmentary information. Almost everything that we know Is is mediated through other sources. You can if you if you want find What sound like extremely orthodox statements.