September 13, 2011

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. It's 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.

Apologetics Methodology and William Lane Craig

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. I was looking just yesterday at the lineup for the National apologetics conference at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa coming up in October. It seems you they're going to skip heights X Church and then off to the Vatican of the non-denominational denomination the Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa and Norm Geisler and Eric and Ken are speaking at both of those major events and.

So really need to talk to. You know, we never did see Carla that day. We need to talk to Carla about putting together that shirt and. You know, what about hadith 2425 that says what needs to be right there.

Right there on the front and something along the lines of answer to this to be found in Arabic in Sweden.

Something like that. Something like those lines are very good. I still like the banner over the balcony idea. Yeah, that's good football games. You know Hadith.

Yeah, I think yeah, maybe that's all we need to do is just hadith 2425 when Ralph met me at the airport. He had a sign that said hadith 2425 problem is he had upside down. It's like that's good. They looked at it oh.

At the airport no less. Yeah. Yeah, and then he was. The real scary part would have been if it was on my way out because I flew on 9 -11. So I flew in. Again that's right. Here we go. Yeah, that's that's it.

And do I know him? Nope, never met him before in my life at least on the way in. I could have said that and. See you later, Ralph. Nice knowing you. Would have been great. No, actually you'd be far safer with a sign saying hadith 2425 than John 316 anymore.

You'd probably get arrested for John 316, but hadith 2425. Hey. No worries. Which is sort of sad, hey, I'm gonna have to sue Al Moller. Yep, I'm gonna sue Al Moller the last two days on the briefing over and over again.

You know what he said theology matters. That's a copyright. That is a plain and clear copyright violation, isn't it? I mean what we need to do is we need to send him a theology matters t-shirt requesting a trademark lawyer as soon as.

Paging trademark alert paging trademark lawyer.

Yeah.

Last two days. He kept kept saying see theology matters. It's like hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute. That's mine, man. What are you doing? Yeah, so we'll need to send send. Dr. Moller a Theology matters t-shirt and that will that will be good because he didn't ask me permission, but that's okay.

Because he's the smartest living Southern Baptist. So the smartest living Southern Baptist. Who absolutely molarized someone that we all know and love so deeply. At the last Southern Baptist Convention, oh that was so much fun to watch.

Was you know that camera kept going back to that poor guy at the microphone? Anyway, and I did want to start off the program today by playing a single question. From last Saturday's unbelievable radio broadcast which involved questions being asked of William Lane Craig by Justin Brierley concerning his upcoming UK tour.

Justin is one of the main people bringing him in. So every time I criticize William Lane Craig I Am stomping squarely on Justin's toes, but hopefully Justin will still like me. Despite all of that, but as it may I Listened to the whole program and I was hoping for some good in-depth questions about Dr. Craig.

You emphasize arguing for the greater probability of existence of a God. How do you get from the Greater probability of the existence of a God to the Christian God and to go after his gradualism his his idea of well you know first you you take an atheist and make him a little less of an atheist and Then maybe we can make him a deist and and then we can make him a theist or at least a probabilistic Theist and then we try to push him toward a higher percentage Theist and then well, what's the bridge from a higher percentage theist to an actual Christian?

You know, where's where's that at? It seems a lot of people rejoice in any one of those preceding movements. None of which bring eternal life and if anybody stays there the rest of their lives They will not have eternal life and there's this gradualism and I just don't I don't see the Apostles doing it that way.

It's that's not the way but there was one. Just one question the last question of the day Was Somewhat similar so we're gonna listen to the whole question and answer and then I will respond to it. So let's listen to the last question offered to William Lane.

Craig as we wrap up today's program just Sneak in one more question a bit more of a general one on this occasion as Stephen Bean got in touch and said Bill do you believe there's any difference between your methods and the Apostle Paul's methods of evangelism?

Well, I think there is a difference I think the Apostle Paul had the advantage of signs and wonders Which I unfortunately Don't have and I mean that seriously Paul would write to his churches and say weren't the signs of a true Apostle performed among you and Some like the late John Wimber have called us to perform power evangelism as he called it that we ought to be doing Signs and wonders as we evangelize or share the gospel and for better or worse God just hasn't gifted me in that way.

So that difference certainly exists. But having said that there's a great deal of commonality between the way I do evangelism and what the Apostle Paul did. Paul wrote in his second letter to the church in Corinth Greece the following words.

He said we destroy Arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God taking every thought captive to obey Christ and when I read those words, I thought what a striking description of what I'm about as well trying to interact with the arguments that are offered by secularism against the truth of Christian theism and taking every cap Every thought captive to obedience to Christ.

And so when the Apostle Paul Would go into a city. He would enter a Jewish synagogue and he would argue with the People there from the scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and when dealing with Gentile audiences Paul would appeal to the evidence of nature to Cosmology in effect the witness of nature to an eternal and powerful Creator of the world and he would appeal to the conscience of God's Moral law written on the hearts of all people a sort of moral argument if you will, so I find in Paul also this this great appeal to the intellect and to evidence in support of Christian theism and to to move beyond mere theism Paul would cite the witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus as testimony that it is through Jesus of Nazareth.

That God has especially revealed himself and he said it's by raising him from the dead that God has shown he has appointed this man as the one by whom he will judge the world and Paul would rent the Hall of Tyrannus For example and hold daily lectures there and invite anyone to come and interact with him on these issues and so I resonate very much with the methods of Paul insofar as he appealed to the Power of argument and evidence in support of the truth of the Christian gospel that he proclaimed.

It's been great having you on with us Billy speak of that renting holes that pulled it.

So there's there's the one question right at the end That was relevant to what I would have wanted to say or would say to William Lane Craig if we were to address What sounds like an arcane issue and that is Apologetic methodology, but it's not it is a fundamental issue.

It is derived directly from our theology and I would like to suggest That while I understand dr. Craig's claims that he just made there I very very strongly disagree that he is utilizing the Apostle Paul's methodology because I have no reason to believe and have never been given any reason to think that the Apostle Paul in the school of Tyrannus had he dealt with a Philosopher of a naturalistic bent would have argued the way that William Lane Craig argues.

I Do not see any reason to think that Paul would have granted To that philosopher the autonomy that William Lane Craig grants To the human mind and the human soul. I do not see any evidence that the Apostle Paul would have allowed his God to in essence be put in the dock and Cross-examined in the way that that form of apologetic methodology that he represents allows.

And I certainly as we look at 2nd Corinthians chapter 10 Would question the application that is made at that point. There the Apostle Paul says now this is specifically You know, I realize that there are You know sort of overarching applications, but this is specifically in regards to Paul's authority amongst the the Corinthians themselves.

But he says for though we walk in the flesh We are not waging war according to the flesh the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh. But have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive To obey Christ being ready to punish every disobedience when your obedience is complete now notice.

The end of the sentence makes it very clear. This is actually a church discipline issue first and foremost. So I'm not really sure that this is the best and I've heard people on both sides Make a much wider application.

So let's let's go with a much wider application and That is that there is in apologetics a destroying of arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God not a fundamental difference in approaching that task in Taking every thought captive in obedience to Christ.

Is there not every difference between approaching that task thinking That it is our duty to give more information. That we just the people we're talking to don't have enough information. If they just had the right information if it was just presented in the right way if it was presented more Compellingly if it was if it was presented with a constant smile upon one's face.

Then we would have people falling over themselves in making commitments to Christ. Is that is that how is that how Paul viewed people is that his anthropology? No, this is the same Apostle who made it very plain that Mankind is suppressing the knowledge of God.

They know God exists and yet they suppress that knowledge and they twist the creator creation distinction they twist that relationship into idolatrous forms and. So Paul is not functioning on the idea that well, we just need to You know move somebody a little bit closer.

Give him a little more information. He's functioning on the basis that a Thought that is not Captive in obedience to Christ is an evil thought. Now think about what we played last week. I don't think I have the I Don't have the sound clip queued up.

Remember the very end of the debate that we played last week.

When.

William Lane Craig is debating an atheist and not a good atheist. Dr Silverman was his name and he had not presented much of a of a case but We got to the very last question that was asked remember what dr. Craig's response was well, dr Silverman should just become a Christian who doesn't believe in inerrancy.

Remember that so it's a well. Dr. Silverman should get a little closer and then a little closer and and instead of challenging Silverman's creatureliness and the rebellion of his Thought process outside of obedience to Christ.

It's well, mr. Dr. Silverman should become a little bit more obedient to Christ. Maybe just just a little bit of obedience and then we can try to get a little bit more obedience and then then just just a little bit more beyond that.

I don't see that that is a fulfillment of Destroying arguments and in fact, I would argue that If as an evidentialist You do not challenge The unbeliever on his claim of autonomy. You do not challenge the unbeliever on his claim to a neutral moral ground.

Which of course is impossible in a Christian theistic universe. In a probabilistic theistic universe maybe there is a a moral neutral ground. But in a Christian theistic universe, there's no such thing as neutral ground anywhere and So if if William Lane Craig is actually not in any way shape or form Challenging the ground upon which the unbeliever stands.

Then how can he claim to be? Destroying arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God. How can he claim to be taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ when he's saying?

Actually, every thought should be captive to the obedience of each individual person and and that's okay as long as you You know look toward the greater probability of the existence of a God. I Just don't think that that's what's going on.

And I don't think that when we work through first Corinthians chapter 1 that tremendous text. That we see the William Lane Craig arena of apologetic presentation. I just there's a really good example of Paul in apologetic mode and Do we see him doing?

What Craig and those who follow him are doing is that the methodology? I don't believe that it is and So that was as close as we got to the vital discussion of Whether this is an apologetic methodology that is thoroughly biblical.

The problem is I think a lot of people who support that kind of perspective Are not overly concerned about whether it is thoroughly biblical. It's much more of a pragmatic thing and that pragmatic in the sense that well, hey I've seen it work.

And.

Therefore if if I've seen it work then then God must must like it and It must be honoring to God if I've seen it work. So if if God uses imperfect means then we shouldn't really worry too much about it.

We shouldn't look to his word to see if he gives us guidance on this. Pragmatically it's worked in the past. And so let's stick with it that in essence is what we end up seeing and.

I I.

Know I'm a an old stick-in-the-mud and I know it's another reason why I Don't get many invitations them them. They're big conferences, you know, I it's just it's just wild-eyed fanatics like Todd Friel, you know and Wretched radio and Phil Johnson and you know.

Just a small number of people that'll even be found on the same stage with yours truly. All because of why. Well. There's a there's many there's many reasons I Just happen to embody them all in one person.

Some people have one part of it and some people have the other part of it. I just put all in one person and and that way.

So.

Yes, I I really enjoy getting out and getting a chance to be at places like someone 19 this weekend and interestingly enough addressed first peer three and in fact, I think.

The.

Handheld video that was taken of my sermon on first Peter 3 is going to be posted somewhere on the web. I'm not sure where but it'll be posted somewhere on the web soon and I will. Yeah, well actually Ralph said he held it fairly steady.

But can you imagine holding it because when he told me that I'm sitting there going? Oh, man, that would hurt. I don't know that I would want to do that for the whole sermon. But yeah, well, I'll try to link to that once it's once it's it's posted.

Or if Oh lanes could be putting it up, so it'll be on lanes Lanes website. Wayne Lane has absolutely no reason to boast about how many more video Views he has than I do because I keep letting him post all my stuff.

Anyways, so. He he. He can't he cannot in any way shape or form boast about that because. What would he have if it if it weren't for me and Paul Washer and a few other people, you know, give him stuff.

You know, I mean, come on. We might have some video of him dunking or something, but I'm really not certain that he can still do that is in his advanced age. Well as well when he was younger he had the vertical of a credit card now.

Got the vertical of a carbon slip. Hear that one anyways, that's just how we find out if Lane's still listening because I don't see him in channel much and You know, what can I say? All right. Let's get back to our reviews.

We've got two that are ongoing right now sort of left time for. You know throwing a third one in. We've been doing three for so long. We finished the Fernandez Comas debate I forgot over the weekend. I was a little busy to drop.

Dr Fernandez a line, but I will try to remember to do that and See if I can reestablish communication there, but we finished that up. Obviously, I continue listening to things while writing and Want to have time on the program to you know, bring those things in and keep up with current events.

Things that are developing and happening, but we also of course are looking forward to. The time period where we will be debating.

Both.

Abdullah Kunda and Roger Perkins down in Australia. I think I have less than I've got less than a month before I face that that that that that airline trip, that's. It's it's a big one. I remember the last one very very very clearly the this I can still see I was on one of those a380s.

You know, who knows may have been the one that had the engine failure later on who knows but I was on one of the a380s and It just didn't feel like you were flying it just didn't there's just no movement it's just too big and it's just sort of like you get into a room and You sit in there for 15 hours and you get out and you're on the other side of the planet and it's just it's just that.

That odd it was it was just did not feel like flying except that you were sitting forever in a very small space in a can. Yeah, and you know, they've they're getting the and the other guy puts his seat back, you know, you could oh Yeah, it's right there.

You could you could comb his hair for him. It's just really really bad, but anyways, let's let's press on let's go back to the Roger Perkins. But I just realized that for some reason this only has one channel selected.

There we go. Now we have two channels selected. One channel doesn't sound as good. Anyways, let's continue on with Roger Perkins versus. Mr. Reeves. We are still in Rogers opening statement. I think the last time if I recall correctly I got 34 seconds done before I wandered off and started talking about Christology and stuff like that and I got a lot of people to Psalm 119 conference were saying yes you've got to do the Christology thing and do the class and you know, and So I I just need to find out if if I can find online I'll try to remember to look today, but I've gotten another big project.

I've got to try to take care of today, but I Wonder if Boyce's abstract of systematic theology is in PDF anywhere online and if it was. Is the Christology section? Solid enough to use that's probably gonna be the best way to go so that there's no it's not a matter of people going out and buying a book or something like that and there won't be any difficulty tracking down of course the Chalcedonian definition and the Athanasian creed and all that kind of stuff.

That's that's easy to find but the question is would Boyce's abstract systematic theology be online and if it is. Then that's what that's how we'll learn. That's how we'll do it. Okay with that in mind Let's go back to Roger Perkins opening statement tonight for my opponent.

If he believes that that the humanity of Christ I started to add this and my questions, but if the humanity of Christ is literally divine I'd like for him to deal with that when he comes back up here.

If he does that's a form of divine flesh which John and Paul wrote against if deity ladies and gentlemen can die as Deity, you know, he would not have had to wait until Calvary to die. He could have died as soon as Adam and Eve Ascend in the garden.

He wouldn't have had to wait thousands of years to die if deity as deity can die. But Hebrews 2 and 17 says that he was in all things made like his brethren. We don't have divine flesh and neither did he he first.

Timothy 2 says there's one God and one mediator Between God and men and I like what he says here. He says that He said that in order for one to be a mediator Then you have to possess that of the self you have to possess that of both parties that you represent.

Very good Mr. Reeves you and I have a human spirit, don't we? Yes, we do. If Jesus Christ represented us and he represented divinity then Jesus Christ also had a human spirit out of.

But the question that has to be asked of Mr. Perkins oneness theology is What is the nature of? intercession and mediation. What is the Sun doing today? Is What what does it mean? When we are told that Jesus has entered into the presence of God in our behalf.

What does that mean in oneness theology. How can Jesus be? interceding for The people of God, I mean when you think about Christian theology you think about the book of Hebrews you think about the relationship that exists between the elect and Jesus Christ.

They are united with him. So who are we united to because it is the Son Who enters into the presence of the Father and intercedes in our behalf? So are we only united to a human nature? There is no vital union with the divine.

See once you once you make the Sun a non-divine person then you have to deal with the nature of the Sun after the resurrection and his his operation as high priest and intercessor. So who are we united to and.

And what is the nature of intercession and who is the Sun interceding before if there is no distinction of divine persons if there is a Unitarian perspective here. Unitarianism has always led to a view of Jesus is just a great moral teacher and Unitarianism has always led to a destruction of the supernatural characteristics of Christianity.

So that the idea of the intercessory work of Christ becomes a mere metaphor and Not a reality. Obviously, I'm drawing on this especially because I've been preaching through Hebrews and to deal with that glorious portion as It as it addresses the subject of intercession and mediation.

Only makes sense when you recognize the divine nature of the Sun. But who is interceding before the father that will be a question That I will be asking Mr. Perkins in just a matter of weeks out of your own mouth.

You said that he had to have both parties that he represented. So let's let's see what the Bible says. Ladies and gentlemen, Jesus said believe on me as the scriptures have said Hebrews 5 7 sees that says that Jesus prayed.

We heard about the prayers tonight. Hebrews 5 7 says that Jesus prayed in the days of his flesh. I'm gonna give you what the scripture says and we're gonna match it with what the so-called Church of Christ says.

Well.

Don't wait that that that sounds wonderful. You give us what the scripture says and not what the Church Christ says that's that's that's that's wonderful, but Here's here's here's the question What does it mean that Jesus Prayed in the days of his flesh.

What what is that what is that supposed to how how is that relevant to Proving this point. We believe Jesus prayed in days of his flesh. It does not it says Hebrews 5 7 Who in the days of his flesh Prayed.

Okay, the NET says during his earthly life Christ offered both requests and supplications ESV in the days of her 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.

Although he was a son He learned obedience through what he suffered. So clearly this Jesus who's offering up prayers is Praying to somebody else. Now in oneness theology, that's an internal conversation.

It's a conversation going on inside Jesus. It's it's one person in Jesus praying to the other person in Jesus. That's not what Hebrews 5 7 is saying. But there's Hebrews 5 7 is also not saying that his prayers Originated in the flesh and went to the divine side.

That is a that is a gross Isagetical reading into the text of something that is not there Jesus prayed because as the God-man he continued in perfect communion with the Father. One would not expect that communication to end.

But it also clearly distinguishes between Jesus and the one who was able to save him from death which in oneness theology is a distinction within the one person Jesus. Which is what makes him two persons.

In oneness theology and that is not in any way shape or form what we're looking at here. By the way a bunch of people in channel posted in channel the fact that founders org has Voice online and so I'm looking here and chapter 26 is the person of Christ and I'm just scanning through it here to see how long it is truly God Incarnate had a human body.

Against the docetics, that's good and Let's see here had a human soul also very good Objection there must be two persons in Christ's objection the unity of his being and this all and this is all that leads to Acceptance.

The doctrine of the divine nature is substituting human soul if therefore such be the union. The Christ can as one person subsist in two natures that involving that personal duality the full objection of the human soul is removed.

We shall see hereafter that this can be done. If it could not then we would have should have two theories each with difficulties. I see there's that's that's good. Seems to be pretty long and pretty full here.

So that probably will work out a good number of Texts cited. I love seeing biblical texts there. Yeah, this looks good. This looks good. So I will keep this if you go to the founders org library under Boyce abstract PDF you can grab it and put it on your on your Kindle if you want, but it looks like about what how many pages here.

And.

Do to do to do. There it looked about I don't know. That was about 10 15 page. Well, it less than that 10 15 pages somewhere around there. So that would be a good some good background reading so I will get that linked up and that way we can have that as auxiliary reading and.

So we'll be ready to go. So we will. I'll look at the calendar and look to travel schedule next week. I am in Augusta, Georgia. From Tuesday night through Saturday morning and.

So.

That's gonna make it really really really difficult to do dividing lines at all. We'll try to do one on Monday. Because I that's probably all we're gonna get in unless something just happens to where.

We can work something out, but might not. So, you know, that's that's life. That's how how how it goes, but I'll be down in Augusta, Georgia and I Don't think we ever managed to get anything up on the on the blog about that.

I'm apologize for that or like a banner ad or anything like that, but I will be in the Augusta, Georgia area. Speaking on Wednesday Thursday and Friday evenings. There may be something Saturday morning, I'm just off the top of my head.

I don't. I don't remember that there is but. So we'll be doing doing that then and I'll try to have some more details on that on Thursday. I'll try to remember to Send the email over that has the schedule so that at least I can give you all the all the details.

All. Right, let's get back to Roger Perkins here and.

First Peter three and eight says that that Jesus was put to death in his flesh. First Peter.

First Peter 3 8 Does say that? But what does that mean? Is that a an assertion of the reality? Actually. First Peter 3 8 that's not what first Peter 3 8 says. I will take that back. Did he say first Peter say second Peter?

Let's try second Peter. Nope, it's not second Peter 3 8 either. Well, I there's nothing. Hmm, well, I guess we just have a miss citation there. Which makes it difficult to respond to. Unless it was 318.

Let me see. Yes. Yeah, 318 not 3 8. Okay. For Christ also suffered once for sins The righteous of the unrighteous that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh But made alive in the spirit.

So what does that mean? If you are limiting. And I'm not sure why he's presenting this other than. Well, it's just Jesus's flesh that died.

Well.

It was it just his spirit that was made alive because if you're gonna if you're gonna use that kind of Argumentation then the resurrection has to go out the window. Because it says but made alive in the spirit.

So is that something different? But the idea again is dismissing the reality of the union of the two natures in in Jesus Christ, that's Evidently seems to be what the argumentation is there. I'm not Really certain because as you'll notice we're just sort of getting these verses thrown out without any exegesis offered in the process.

Jesus suffered in the flesh. Colossians 1 and 22 says that the body of his flesh through death.

First Timothy 2 5 said again. None of this is of course relevant to the subject. Because we believe that Jesus Christ as the God man suffered and died, so I'm not really sure.

What the issue is that the man gave himself not the deity, but the man. I agree now.

See you've just cut again. The one person of Jesus Christ into two persons a schizophrenic union With no meaningful Connection between the two so that Jesus when he prays that's just his human side praying to his divine side.

This results in the Sun not being divine while Jesus is divine the Sun is not. See. You need to see what that means and Realize why the church this was. This is one of the very first errors the church rejected even before the Arian controversy arose.

So if we if there is a Position of honor amongst heresies. It goes to this one.

I read Jesus Christ was deity, but if you're telling me that we have dead deity at Calvary. Respectfully, I'm not trying to be ugly here, but I'm gonna tell you you're not sober enough to be here tonight.

Dead deity at Calvary. Well, what do you think death is?

And.

As mr. Rees will rightly point out then you do not have Jesus Christ truly dying the the very foundation of atonement. The very foundation of substitutionary atonement and redemption is undone. When you in essence like the Gnostics of old Have the deity part flitting away on the cross it was one of the big Gnostic stories of the Second and third centuries that the divine Christ Stands upon a hill watching the events of the crucifixion laughing thinking that is you know.

It's he's laughing because his enemies think they've got him. But of course, he has separated himself from the human being who dies and That seemingly is is is a similar concept here. That's not what the scriptures present about Jesus Christ.

If deity could die Then there was no need for the incarnation. Because but but without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. God prepared a body and that body had to die. And that body was not only a human being he was the only sinless human being to ever die to be buried and to vindicate himself as indeed the Son of God through the resurrection of from the dead but.

Son of God by adoption evidently by some sort of incarnation, but not the incarnation of Christian theology some kind of indwelling but the Son himself is not a divine person and It is by the giving only of an innocent human being that all of humanity all of the elect of God Men from every tribe tongue people and nation are redeemed.

That evidently is the argument that is being presented. That's the only way I can understand it.

Act 1731 says that God will judge the world by that man whom he raised from the dead. So I'm giving you what the scripture says. He's giving you what the Church Christ says.

Well again. Yeah, we we believe that Jesus Christ is identified as the man As a man and as the one by whom judgment is going to take place. What does that have to do with whether that man is? two persons or whether that man is one person with two natures and that the the divine nature Was a divine person in eternity past Distinct from distinguishable from The Father and distinguishable from the Holy Spirit.

That's the issue and I'm going to do everything in my power to focus upon that issue When we engage this subject because it is the issue upon which oneness theology Stands or falls and it is the issue where it is simply demonstrably wrong and its apologists Seek to maintain the system by focusing upon almost anything but the key issue and that is did the Son as a person distinguishable from the Father Pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem.

If there was a divine person Who is the Son? Who is the one who becomes flesh? Who is not the Father? Then oneness theology is thereby disproven and should be abandoned as a bad unbiblical idea.

Acts 20 28. I Think I think he referenced acts 20 28. This is anthropomorphic language. Anthropomorphism is the act of attributing human form to deity whereby we can better relate to him. God does not literally as deity have blood and if you want scripture for that Jesus said John for God is spirit.

And then he said in Luke 23 and a spirit does not have flesh as You see that I have.