Response to Anthony Buzzard and More

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.

Responding to Anthony Buzzard on the Shema and the Trinity

And welcome to the dividing line. We have a tremendous amount of stuff to get to today the stack of stuff as they say in the professional circles is large indeed. Want to start off today. Responding to a brief video that I was directed to I hesitate to call him a student.

But he was in the class that I was teaching in Berlin a few months ago a gentleman who Basically, I ended up calling him the Internet. Because every time I would make reference to something a few minutes later He would say it's right here if anybody would like to see it.

Oh, it's right here. He made Google look a little anemic and Then when he wrote his paper, it turned out to be a small book on The very end of John 1440. I'm trying to talk him into I haven't heard back from trying to talk him into allowing me to post that because I think those of you who deal especially with Jehovah's Witnesses and Those who deny the deity of Christ would find John 1414 to be an important text and this is on the textual data regarding Whether the word me is to be included in the Greek text, but anyway That's a gentleman who directed me to a video.

That sir, Anthony buzzard posted now. Most of you remember a few years ago. I think it was what about 2010 I think In the summer right around this time. I think might have been September. I know it was very warm that day Dr. Michael Brown and I did a debate live debate on the Jewish voice broadcast with sir Anthony buzzard another gentleman and I haven't said a lot about it.

I mean it's out there. It's on YouTube. I hear comments about all the time. But what's getting strange to me? Is that sir Anthony buzzard can't seem to stop talking about it and I've seen this before remember we did I don't know how many weeks we did an entire response to Patrick Madrid because they just kept drumbeat you know Patrick Madrid on on veneration of Saints and angels, you know destroys James White la la la la and You know and Catholic answers also with the the Jimmy Akin Bible Answer Man debate, which wasn't a debate.

But we've we've gone through all of those only because my former opponents just have absolutely Demanded that we do so Because of the comments they've made about it Generally when one of my opponents spends a great deal of time talking about a former debate.

It's because they don't feel like it went overly well and to be honest with you One of the comments I got from my daughter after after the debate was actually I sort of felt sorry for them. It was so lopsided.

So you know most of the comments that I've gotten have been very strongly positive and that there really wasn't any issues as far as Why they brought up stuff I had never even thought of before. None of that really took place.

I I felt that it was a pretty straightforward Demonstration of the bankruptcy of the Unitarian position from the New Testament perspective. But anyway Sir Anthony buzzard has Posted a number of videos over the past couple of years.

And so finally I took the time I really don't have the time I'm behind on another project and I'm really not gonna be able to follow up on it, but I took the time to listen to this well watch obviously, but This particular video and so what I'd like to do is I would like to I'm just gonna play the whole thing.

It's not very long. It's only five minutes long. I'm gonna play the whole thing and then I'm gonna go back through it and respond to portions of it and Hopefully that will be useful to you in the listening audience.

And then I've got a bunch of other stuff to get to you today as well as the whole reason why we're doing these jumbo Length dividing lines to continue on our reviews in preparation for the debates in South Africa, etc, etc so get a deep seat in the saddle as they say here in the Western states and.

Let's take a listen to what he has a few remarks about our debate some years ago with dr James White and dr. Michael Brown on the issue of the Trinity. We that's an ongoing debate. I want to make a few simple points about the unitary monotheism of Jesus and therefore I think It follows that since Jesus was a unitary monotheist in Mark 12 verse 29 It must follow that we as Christians would want to follow that unitary non-trinitarian Creed of Jesus.

That's just logical. Now Michael Brown in a subsequent blog says this very clearly. He addresses me says Anthony he Michael Brown affirms the Shema of Israel. Would you think about that very carefully.

If that is so Jesus is citing and quoting and affirming according to Michael Brown a Trinitarian Creed. I Find that absolutely astonishing. One of the debating techniques is to treat your partner as some lone Soul who's come up with a brand new idea that nobody thought of that's absolutely untrue.

There are thousands countless scholars who know full well The Judaism was not a Trinitarian religion and is not I want to make that absolutely clear the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 5 The Lord our God is one Lord.

I'm giving us the Greek version Which is appearing also in the New Testament as scripture the Lord our God is one Lord. That is not a Trinitarian Creed but Michael Brown have to say has to say that he Michael Brown is a Trinitarian and What's more that he affirms the Shema that must be a contradiction.

If you're affirming the Shema you're affirming a Unitarian Creed and guess what Jesus Our rabbi and Lord is the one who affirms the Unitarian Creed Found in Mark 12 29 and he's doing it agreeing with a Jew.

Surely everybody knows that Jews then and now and in the time of Moses were not Trinitarian so there's a complete Contradiction involved in Michael Brown statement that he Michael Affirms the Shema as a Trinitarian Creed.

That's just got to be wrong. The other point that dr. James White makes is that we are assuming now.

Let's let's go ahead and and respond to that portion first. I was just gonna play the whole thing through but I don't want us to lose track of of what we've. What we're listening to obviously when and I haven't talked to Michael about this, but I'm I think I'm on pretty safe ground in responding for him at this point every Trinitarian Every Trinitarian who has read anything who is self-aware of his theology who who's more than a Trinitarian of tradition?

But a Trinitarian of conviction and I will confess that that's a smaller group than one might expect. But every Trinitarian affirms the Shema. We affirmed the Shema in the debate and the debate was about whether you can Assume as Sir Anthony does over and over and over again without proving just assuming That these words are you they demand a Unitarian? interpretation.

They do demand a monotheistic interpretation they do not demand a Unitarian interpretation and that's what the whole debate was about. I do not understand why Sir Anthony can't get that Sir Anthony cannot even properly Understand the position that he's critiquing.

He has to continuously Assume Unitarianism and then as a result, I'd say oh So you're just contradicting yourself rather than hearing what we're saying and then interacting with it to demonstrate that it's not possible to consistently interpret the scriptures in the way that we're doing and We all saw in the debate.

They cannot deal with the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ they cannot deal with the biblical evidence for the fact that Jesus Christ is Described by the writers the New Testament as Yahweh that the Old Testament text about Yahweh or sight of Jesus.

They have to go scurrying off for representative Interpretations and stuff that just is is far removed from what's actually there in the text itself. They can't deal with that. Their big thing is singular pronouns and just assuming that If you have one being of God God's being must be limited to one person.

It's just the way that is and that's why this is relevant to our apologetic to Islam because that's exactly of course what the Muslim does as well with Unfortunately in the vast majority of instances just as a little Reflection on the part of the person making the argument as we see In in Sir Anthony's repetition of the same statements over and over again He mentions the allegedly Unitarian Confession of Faith, which is just the Shema Mark 1229 so he's saying see Jesus said the Shema.

Well, we all know Jesus said the Shema and he's gonna accuse he's gonna say there's no discussion of this and James White's books actually, obviously I very clearly confess in the book That Christians are not denying the Shema.

We are not saying the Shema was wrong. We're not saying anything like that at all. What he wants to force us to try to say is that the Shema Meant and for those of you don't know what Shema is Shema. Yes.

I know Yahweh Elohim. Yahweh Akkad. It's found in Deuteronomy 6 4. It's quoted in Mark 1229 he's trying to put us in the untenable position of saying that when a Jewish person 50 years before Christ said the Shema that made him a Trinitarian and again, they just won't listen.

Well, they can't I mean they can't if they listened and actually interacted with our position as we state it there if their arguments would evaporate so. Maybe that's why they can't do it. But The the attempt is to say oh Well, if you understand it in a Trinitarian fashion Then it must always been understood in Trinitarian fashion and that ignores the central thesis which again was explained in the debate.

But in one year out the other unfortunately. That's the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity takes place how I've I've Mentioned this over and over and over again, but I always have to remember we have new new visitors to the To the program all the time if you've not read the Forgotten Trinity, it's it's certainly one of my books that you have to Put at the top of the list because it's so central to our faith.

But as I pointed out in in in the book itself the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity takes place in the incarnation ministry death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is exaltation the right hand of the Father and Then in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

This is where the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity is made. Are there? Indicators pointers to this in the Old Testament of course there are just as there were indicators pointers prophecies of the ministry of the Messiah and the Grandeur of the person the Messiah and everything else Isaiah 9 and so on and so forth in the Old Testament but the actual revelation takes place in the incarnation and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the New Testament then becomes the record of that Revelation and the record of that faith that grows out of That great redemptive act and the revelation of the God that we worship now.

What this means then is what we should find in the New Testament our Old Testament texts that spoke of the one God of Israel Being interpreted in this way and that's exactly what we have in one of the key texts in the New Testament.

And that key text is 1st Corinthians chapter 8. 1st Corinthians chapter 8 verse 6. 1st Corinthians 8 6 it is a tremendous text. I Can only direct you back I think Maybe I think it was December of 2011 December of 2011 when I did a debate with a Unitarian On another webcast and then we did I Don't know how many webcasts here where we went in depth into many of the key Christological passages many of the key Christological passages we went very in-depth on them and One of those texts was 1st Corinthians chapter 8 so I I don't have time today to go as in-depth as I would like but You'll notice that in 1st Corinthians 8 6 We have it's it's even placed in Poetic form in the Nestle Allen Greek text probably new in UBS.

I didn't take a look, but I'm assuming that it is and we have here what many scholars believe to be a Fragment of an very early very very early creedal statement and Notice what it says, but to us There is one God the Father from whom are all things and we for him and One Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through him.

Now you say what what does that have to do with this? Well to anyone who would know the Shema in the Greek text The Greek Septuagint, which is how the Jewish heritage of the Christian people would be known to people outside of Palestine the the Bible of the New Testament Church was the Greek Septuagint.

There's no question about that. Just just look at even in Preaching to Jewish Christians the book of Hebrews. What's the text that's being cited? It's the Greek Septuagint even when it differs in some substantial ways at times from the Hebrew Masoretic text so when you look at the Shema in the Greek Septuagint and you look at the words and You look at Kurios Being used for the name Yahweh.

You look at the os being used for the word Elohim Hebrew for God. Then you look at first Corinthians 8 6 certainly. I am NOT the only person who has seen many before me have seen and have commented upon and People by the way from a wide variety of backgrounds.

I know that dr. NT Wright Has spoken about this very issue. We would be in in a large measure of agreement on this particular subject. That what you have in this early Christian Creed and if this if this is something that was delivered to Paul Then it's as primitive as anything can be it goes to the first years and I'm talking first second third year of the existence of the Christian community right after the death, prayer and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And if that's the case, then you have here a fragment of a creed That takes the very words of the Shema. See, we don't we don't repudiate the Shema. We see the Shema as fulfilled in this way the very words of the Shema and in light of The incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit you now have an understanding that they're looking back and they're seeing kudios and they're seeing to us and They're seeing these words Lord and God and what does it come out as but for us?

Heist they asked hop hot air. One God the father from whom Top hanta are all things and we ice out on for him and one Lord heist Kudios, Jesus Christ one Lord Jesus Christ D who top hanta through whom are all things and we d outu Through him you could not use those words in that way about a mere creature no matter How exalted you might make that creature it would be blasphemy.

It would be utterly and completely contrary. Well to a non-believing Jewish interpretation of the Shema which is exactly what Anthony buzzard gives to us. He demands that we agree with the unbelieving Jews even to this day.

That's what he's doing so when Michael Brown says I affirm the Shema this is what he's affirming. We affirm the Shema we just recognize that that's not all there is to it. The Bible didn't stop at Deuteronomy 6 5 and in fact that Old Testament is filled with prophecies of this coming one and Once we live in the light of that coming then we have this type of scripture and we have to deal with it for what?

It says but Anthony buzzard can't deal with it for what it says because he doesn't believe it doesn't believe it so. But then he turned his attention to yours truly. Yes, a few comments toward Michael and then a few comments toward me as well James White makes is that we are assuming Unitarianism.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm assuming only that the personal singular pronoun. I me thou thee he him and so on. Thousands upon thousands of times in the Hebrew Bible also in the new those singular personal pronouns.

Assume a single person if that's not clear. Nothing is clear in language. So I want to say that dr. White if anybody could do this. This extraordinary exercise of turning the Bible into a Trinitarian book.

He could do it. He struggles hard and long with this but finally contradicts himself. He makes it clear at the beginning of his treatise on The Trinity the Forgotten Trinity in which may I say in his text index, which I had to procure.

He makes no reference. Please know no reference to mark 1229 no reference to the Creed of Jesus. In trying to explain the Trinity that's amazing in itself. But at the same time is very clear that you cannot say that 1x is 3x is.

You must not and cannot say without contradicting yourself. James White says this clearly you cannot say God is the name for each individual of the three and God is also the name of All three together.

That's very very true. But unfortunately Dr. James White falls into his own trap. So on page 71 of his treatise on the Trinity says this. As long as one recognizes that the word God Can refer to the Father?

To the Son to the Spirit or please note to all three persons at once. I Want to repeat that James White says as long as we realize That the word God refers individually to Father Son Holy Spirit and also the word God refers to all three at once.

Then we're okay. We'll let we'll get it, right. But with great respect James White you have already told us that 3x is cannot be 1x. You've therefore given us a nonsense Proposition and you go on to say that in the Bible this can happen that the word God refers To all three together.

But no text is offered in support there is none. I Would invite you to show us out of about 11 ,000 references to God the various words for God Elohim. I don't I they asked in the Greek where does that word God ever.

Refer to all three persons as a triune God nowhere. That could strongly suggest not an assumption. I think an obvious fact that in the Bible when they say God they never mean a triune God and.

That is the end of the presentation now so many things to respond to there. I wish he had actually given a page number for the first thing. I can't find that. Certainly page 71. I was talking about John 2028 and I would invite anyone to look at the Amazingly poor efforts that sir Anthony has put forward to try to explain John 2028 it is Amazing to listen to people.

Trying to get around the clarity of that text. They just can't do it. It's just it's not possible. They can't do it. And that's what I was talking about there a couple things to respond to here. The primary assertion that that he makes is well if you've got singular pronouns.

Then that proves that there that proves Unitarianism and he says show us one place where God refers to the triune God that's simple. Every single time that the context does not demand that we see a particular individual operating Differently than the others would be a reference to the triune God.

So anytime where God's general activities God's general attributes are in reference. Can be referred to the entire Godhead acting in unity. But what do you do? Anthony when you have clear texts that identify Jesus as God.

Acting in such a way where he's differentiated from the father. Well, you have to engage in the mind games that you engage in to try to avoid his identifying being identified as Yahweh and to Try to get around the text where he's the you know with all this representative stuff.

Well, he's just like this representative creature and so on so forth you have to get around you can't accept what those texts say and. So by assuming well if there's a singular pronoun that must mean Unitarianism.

So in other words since that would always be true of human beings. It must be true of God. So we're just projecting our limited understanding of man back onto God. That's what Unitarianism always always is.

You somehow get around the full revelation of who Jesus is. What you well for example. Just a few weeks ago I mentioned in John chapter 14 when Jesus says that the Spirit will be sent by the father in his name.

Remember we talked about that. How how does a Unitarian understand that so the Almighty God is going to send this lesser creature. But that is his spirit, but in the name of another creature. That's what you've got going on there now would we say that God sent his spirit.

Yes, and yet God there Sometimes is going to do we say the father did that? Yeah, that's what Jesus but he did it in the name of Jesus. So Jesus is involved in well, and of course the Spirit is the one who's coming and he's personal.

He's a comforter see this kind of simplistic. Oh, we just need to if it's a singular pronoun. We can't let anything else just simply cannot handle the fullness of Scripture. That's why this position has always been a teeny tiny little minority and always will be as long as the Bible's available to God's people because when God's people read What the Bible actually states they cannot help but to see the exalted status of Jesus Christ.

He's not simply a creature. He's not just some some exalted angelic creature he truly is Described in Scripture as God now. Then he says you contradicted yourself well as Long as you do not allow my categories, which I've laid out in my book To be followed now.

I would like to respond to the original, you know, we was talking about three X's. I was talking there against modalism. I was saying that We are not talking about three persons that are one person or three beings that are one being.

We differentiate between the words being in person and sir. Anthony will not allow that he can't live in light of that. Allowing for his denial of the distinction between being in person destroys human language.

He can't talk him. I mean literally if you follow that way of thinking he shouldn't be able to tell a difference between himself and me. We're both human beings and if being a person the same thing. Well, then I guess we're the same person, right?

I mean doesn't make a lick of sense. He can't live consistently with that. We make a distinction between being in person and what I've said is the father is not the son the son is not spirit these are distinct individuals both we see this by what they do and we see this by their relationships to one another and Yet they fully share the one being that is God and that's what I was saying in John chapter 20 that We cannot just take we can't do it.

Sir. Anthony demands. There's only one use the word God in the Bible. No, God does not have the freedom to reveal anything more than Unitarianism and if there's anything more we'll just dismiss it. That will make mincemeat of the Bible.

It'll be indefensible and We'll leave you in the position that sir. Anthony was when he debated Shabir Ali and it wasn't even a debate because actually They pretty much are on the same page A very similar to one another and so Simply by denying the categories that we ourselves have laid out.

That's that's basically all That sir. Anthony buzzard and his followers can do in this situation and that was demonstrated in the debate. And I think that's very very clear and hopefully that'll be helpful to folks again the Forgotten Trinity Been out for many years now.

Next project after current project I'm working on Second edition new edition of the Forgotten Trinity expanded and things like that. Oh, you didn't know about that. We have many many many things to be doing so that it will be will be coming up and I hope that will be Exciting to folks as well.

All right With with that. I one of the reasons you said boy you were going really fast. Yes, there's a video camera over there and I since he put a video up I wanted to respond but I did it this way and Unfortunately, the camera only runs for 28 minutes so I just just I snuck it in there just in time and That way well, you know if his his was a five-minute video.

You know, you don't want necessarily put up an hour-long response or something like that. But I'll be able to add that down if it worked because I forgot to plug it in. I hope the battery is still running.

Okay. Hope the battery was good and we should be alright with that. So hopefully sometime later. I'll get that. I'll get that posted. So Anyhow, all right, so many things to do here. Let's go ahead and go here real quick.

California’s Transgender Bathroom Law and Moral Collapse

I Had to talk about this talk about shifting gears. We'll be talking about some really important stuff today. That was important. This is important to. You've all seen it. We are in danger my friends of absolute disgust overload.

We are we are at the point where things are happening that are so insane so immoral so evil so twisted and yet they're being promoted by the highest peoples in our society that eventually we're just like.

What can you say? I I mean you you don't have any hair left to pull out. I certainly don't. You all know that. Well California governor Jerry Brown signed a controversial bill into law Monday afternoon allowing the state's transgender public school students.

To choose which bathrooms they use and whether they participate in boy or girl sports. Law would cover the state's 6 .2 million elementary and high school students in public schools a very good reason to not only flee California public schools, which Of course, I would say you'd have to flee anyways in light of the fact that your children are forced to celebrate evil in Harvey Milk Day and things like that.

But even even more so just another another reason to flee, California and Toto. When the big one hits it just all slides off. You know who knows but Supporters say the law will help cut down on bullying against transgender students.

The families of transgender students have been waging local battles with school districts around the country over what restrooms and locker rooms their children can use. Okay. Look, this is simply evil.

It is insane. It is Reprehensible it is wicked. I'm thinking about my little granddaughter. Growing up in a world where some guy Might be in the stall next to her in the bathroom. Because of a very small percentage of people.

Some of whom are seriously confused. But many others are simply perverted. They've been perverted by abuse or they've been perverted because they want to be perverted or whatever it might be. But the fact the matter is when a society Abuses the majority to pander to the small minority.

There must be a reason for it. There must be a reason for it and it's called the judgment of God. Here you have people being absolutely turned over to their sin turned over to their wickedness turned over to their depravity.

Demanding that you and I Go into restrooms and and this has already happened in the city of Phoenix. This this kind of insanity is all around us and You know preceding generations would not have even Could not have even conceived that we would be talking about this could not have even conceived that there would be such a massive denigration of Simple common morality and ethics to this point to where even if I say this and nobody Nobody in the media knows who I am or cares who I am and so no one's good saying about it.

But if they did I Would be the one being called bigoted hateful evil and wicked for standing for simple basic morality they could never have believed it could happen this fast or that it would ever go this far and Yet that is what we are facing in our society today and so just.

Right along these lines Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin who has said God delivered him from the curse of homosexuality did not appear in a Saturday evening concert Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

Why after several gay rights activists objected to his participation in the event? You want to see bigotry. You want to see how intolerant the allegedly tolerant people are. How? Absolutely embroiled and enmeshed in hypocrisy these people are.

Watch a homosexual respond to a former homosexual. You want to see hypocrisy. You want to see hate. You want to see intolerance? Look at how the homosexual lobby deals with anyone who says it's something you can get out of.

Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. McClurkin was scheduled to perform the DC government Sponsored concert with other singers the Martin Luther King jr. Memorial during the reflections on peace from Gandhi to King event at the crest of Mayor Vincent see gray Democrat who fielded concerns from activists.

Friday the Grammy winning winning singer decided not to perform. According to the mayor's office. That's not what he said. He said McClurkin disputed that account saying he was asked not to attend the concert.

In a lengthy video statement post online Saturday McClurkin said gray uninvited me from a concert that I was supposed to headline. Now again, we just go yep. That's the way things are. One small tiny minority can and Believes it should determine the ethical and moral stance of all the rest of us.

They will shove that ethical moral standard down our throats. That is their intention, and that's exactly what they're doing. We've been saying this was coming for I don't know how long and it is here it is here every single day it is injustice and That's why you can have NPR org just a Few weeks ago Posting an article young people push back against gender categories.

Against gender categories. My friends what could be more evidence of The judgment of God on this society than our young people don't even know who they are anymore. They don't even know what a boy is or a girl is.

They have been given such Autonomy to their sinful nature that they get to choose. The result of course is The utter loss of the very things that make the value of life transcendent and that enrich society.

That enrich society. What do I mean by that. What does a husband mean anymore. I Was I was watching one of my Favorite movie. It's a war movie. It's a war movie and yes it Mel Gibson was in it. It was before it was before the complete Mel Gibson meltdown.

Thankfully it's called we were soldiers. I don't know if you've ever seen we were soldiers. It's a tremendous Vietnam War movie about one of the first major battles between US troops and Vietnamese troops.

I've read the read the the book as well and I was struck once again watching it and. And this is reported over and over and over again in in in media. When soldiers would be dying very frequently their very last words tell my wife.

Tell my wife sometimes. I wouldn't be able to finish it, but tell my wife. I love her. You know that's that's one of the first thoughts across the the mind as it as you expire. What does wife mean? What does husband mean I?

Simply cannot come up with any other explanation. For what has happened to a society to where you can no longer Know what words like husband and wife mean. When two men Can get together and call themselves either husbands or one says he's a husband and the other says he's a wife.

Language morality right and wrong. Good-and-evil has been turned on its head and you and I are being told don't you dare call that wrong? I will not deny My human nature let alone my faith. To call a man a wife.

Or to call a woman a husband. I will not profane the language. I will not embrace that kind of depravity and I will be called evil for that. Well someday. Those who call me evil and I will stand before the judge and we will allow him to determine.

But the one who died upon Calvary's tree told us well Do not Do not Deny God's law. Yes, sir. I Just going back to the California thing. One of these people gonna wake up is it going to take a young lady going into a bathroom and a young Ted Bundy is in there waiting for them under that under the Hiding behind me man, you silly Richard Allen Davis.

They don't care. They don't care. I don't care. They don't care about individual rights. They don't care about safety of children. This is all a this is this is a cultural jihad. It has nothing to it actually has nothing to do with homosexuals or transgendered people it is to destroy Anything that is good moral or ethical in the society so the society can collapse.

It has nothing to do with keeping children safe. And the collapse will be when the young Ted Bundy gets hauled into court and appeals to this law saying I belonged in there. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Well, and we have we will have absolutely nothing to say in response to that either.

Nothing to say in response to that. Uh, I do want to get I did want to get to this. But there's just so many let me I Let me get to this one real quick. Then we'll go the other one and we'll see if we can fix it fit all into 90 minutes.

I don't know. Now I've got people in channel All amazed that I've actually watched we were soldiers. Yeah, I did you don't want to you don't want to look at any anything. It's actually historically accurate.

Okay, the ending wasn't historically accurate. All right, read the book. But it was a tremendous battle and Battles like that. I don't know this nation really is up to winning anymore because anyways because of what we're talking about right now the bevy on speed a military.

Military requires a military that will last and do what's right requires a moral and ethical foundation of the nation it represents and That's why we develop smart bombs and and everybody else just blows everything up.

But anyways Michael Brown wrote for Richard Dawkins Muslim bashing is different than Christian bashing and this what I wanted to mention here real quickly was The cowardice of Atheists the cowardice of anti-christian atheists.

That's the only way I can put it. I Didn't I didn't have time to queue it up, but I've played on the program before. The Response of Bart Ehrman to a man asking him about remember, he asked him when you're going to be writing a book on the Quran and Ehrman's response was when I long no longer value my life and You may recall that he took great offense to my asking him to be consistent in our debate and Apply the standards.