January 5, 2006

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. 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 and good afternoon. Good evening. Welcome to the dividing line.

I I can't believe it. It is.

January, isn't it? January 5th. In fact as far as I can tell I was looking at some records today and today in 1950 Phoenix recorded its lowest temperature of all well of all time that you know, was that 1880 something?

So past hundred and twenty hundred and thirty years somewhere along there as long as they've been keeping records January 5th 1950 Was the low in fact January of 1950 must have been pretty incredible because they set the all-time low for the 3rd 4th 5th and 6th which four days in a row to have this the record low and I think there's only four times five times that the temperature in Phoenix is the low has been below 20 degrees For 19s and on this date.

It was 17 degrees in Phoenix I think the lowest has been since I've lived here is 22. I think that and that's been a long time ago now I don't think it's even frozen in the past six years right now 81 degrees 81 degrees outside the record for the day was 77.

So that's four degrees above the record 81 degrees in Phoenix. So if you're in one of those places where it's actually I've been hearing from a lot of folks where it's just unusually warm. It's certainly certainly is here too.

So anyway, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is The phone number we have been Doing two things based on the dividing line recently we have been Responding to the Bart Ehrman interviews on NPR and we will continue that I have that queued up the second Interview we're about 12 minutes into that particular interview.

Why is everyone? Oh, okay. Well, yes, I 22 degrees as Low I've seen and I've seen 122 degrees as the high so 100 degree. Yeah, that's a 122 degrees in the shade which Means in a in a car it was it was that was a rough day.

That was June 26 1990 I believe was the exact date and you know why I remember that because of the book letters to a Mormon elder I was writing the book and I was putting Real events into the beginning of each of the letters.

I was writing to the fictional Mormon missionary I broke my arm during that period of time so I mentioned that I mentioned that my little kids were doing at that time because back then they were little kids and I mentioned also No, June June of 1990 June 20th.

I say July June June 26 1990 was 122 I July June trust me Hit 121 in July later, but 122 was June 26th. You can check it out online. But anyways, that's why I remember those things and for those of you who are I think it's 50 degrees centigrade if I recall correctly Figured that out out once because when you're traveling over the United Kingdom you have to translate these things You know just simply to help people out.

Anyhow, we are listening to Bart Ehrman interview and It actually is about 30 and looking at here 38 and a half minutes long. I Had the window incorrectly sized the last time and so it gave the improper thing.

So we're about a third of the way through that and listening to Ahmed D dot I Mentioned on the blog yesterday I had been listening to his debate with Shirosh and Sam Shimon was right. I You know when I first started listening that I was sort of like, alright, you know someone He's actually presenting some strong passages in the deity of Christ.

Sounds like you can speak for some reason Halfways that debate is just like he shut down. I mean just total meltdown total incapacity to respond anything. I don't know what happened I've got the video.

I should watch that. Maybe I can see something. I don't know, but that was horrible. And then yesterday I was riding My bike and I was listening to His debate. I'm a D dots debate with Jimmy Swagger, oh my goodness, oh my goodness.

And you say well why bother things like that, like I said, this is the common stuff you're gonna hear I mentioned last time. I wish I'd listened to stuff before the the Malik debate I would have would have I could have finished all the questions that the Muslims were asking because they really really really really do listen To what that man had to say and I asked a serious question.

It was in a in the blog article I post this morning had a bunch of stuff in it so maybe it won't be seen and maybe I should should change that but I would I Know we have Muslims who listen to this program because I have been Responding to D dots and to ship should be Ali and and other Islamic apologists and and that's ongoing.

So I know they're listening. I have a serious question. I have a serious question isn't there anyone out there who during the time period of The the heyday of D dot When he was traveling all over the place and and and doing his thing isn't there anyone out there a Muslim Muslim apologist Muslim scholar Who put their hand up and said hey wait a minute.

This guy does not represent me. His arguments His misrepresentations do not represent me. I recognize that he is constantly equivocating. He's constantly misrepresenting. He's constantly using all these bad arguments that that It's clear.

He even knows When he's doing it the mockery that he uses That does not represent me. And I and I rebuke that sort of like what I do with Dave hunt, okay, you know. You know, we we take the time to point out when there are people who are representing What's broadly called evangelical Christianity and they are doing so in a way that is embarrassing that is wrong and We take the heat for that.

Okay? Who is my counterpart over there? That's what I want to know who over there. Back then when he was in his heyday said hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute this this stuff. He's throwing out about the King James, you know, I mean when people push him and and why outside of Josh McDowell why?

Doesn't he debate anyone who can really challenge him didn't he I'm shouldn't use the present tense. He passed away recently, but why didn't he I mean, I'm sorry, but Jimmy swagger Pastor, what was it Stanley?

Sharosha none of these guys even were I mean the stuff he's throwing out is so simplistic so basic to anyone who knows anything about I Mean Sharosha couldn't even explain the Trinity right almost sounds like he was one this a modalist or something wasn't even a Trinitarian I I just it's extremely frustrating to listen to that stuff and Somebody out there has to there's got to be someone with integrity Honesty out there that was saying hey.

Don't don't saddle me with this stuff. I recognize what he's doing is is wrong and let me know I'd love to hear from you a phone line drove an eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. It's someone like to send a URL to you know.

Some apologist out there that was writing that time or has written since then said you know what? You know, I apologize the misrepresentations that Ddot put out there and and he says this but in reality, this is this is the way it should be stated.

You know, maybe even if you agree with some of his objections, but you recognize the examples he's using are just are just ridiculous and we'll listen to some more of that stuff and and it was just Just frustrating to listen to you.

So anyway. That's what we're doing. We've already got so one person on the online. But I want to continue with with Bart airmen here try to get a little bit more Here. Yeah, you know. Someone's asking about the length of the D dot debate.

I think dr Bill can give you that link because he's want to provide it to me but they are available online and you can listen to them yourself and very same ones that I'm gonna be playing and things like that, so Yeah, he just said Google Ahmed D dot mp3.

You'll find it quickly I tried that and ended up a bunch of wrong places places where I had to spend money basically. So, uh, anyhow, let's get back with the NPR interview. We have already been listening to Bart airmen once again talking about really basic stuff really basic things concerning John 8 and things like that.

Let's continue on and compassionate.

Absolutely. It's a it's a completely different view and you know. One of the one of the exercises I give my students here at Chapel Hill my New Testament class is I have them read through the six chapter first six chapters of Mark's Gospel and to do a kind of character analysis of who Jesus is and.

They're really surprised because in these chapters of Mark Jesus does not come off as the Good Shepherd of the stained-glass window Jesus. Jesus seems to be getting angry a lot. He He ignores his family.

He rips his followers away from their own families. He's he's Associates with a wild man in the wilderness John the Baptist. He himself is driven into the wilderness by the Spirit of God where he does battle with the with the demons.

He may he commands illnesses and he commands demons. He seems to be a very charismatic and powerful figure that isn't to be messed with. And this idea of him getting angry when this leper came up to him fits in perfectly.

Well with the way mark is portraying Jesus in these chapters. Well, because because in these chapters whenever anybody questions Jesus ability or Authorization to heal he gets upset.

You know, I must I must have put the wrong timing in there because there there's obviously something I missed here. I'm sitting here listening. It's going. I Don't. I'm trying to think back. It's only been two days till Tuesday.

What was leading up to this and and you know when I get done with each program? I have a little note thing a little note program. I put in where it was and and I I'm gonna I'm gonna Remember that we're at 1320 there.

I'm gonna back this up a second and see if I did I just did I just miss something. So again live dividing line.

So he reached out his hand and touched him. It says Jesus became angry So that it wouldn't be a problem any longer and that that happened.

Story has less currency than other stories in the New Testament or that we should just see that as some.

Fourth and later we copied into the text. Yeah, that's where I was about six and a half and I started at 12. Don't ask me.

How that happened. I apologize, but this is interesting this is very very interesting because we're getting into the Again as I mentioned hopefully some of you Saw Dan Wallace's brief response to to Bart Ehrman online Bring up a lot of the same issues pointing out stuff that really Given if you just take the New Testament as a whole would demonstrate rather clearly that he's he's really picking on inconsequential things aren't overly relevant, but This is going to go into the section concerning the fact that some scribes Did not like the idea that Jesus could get angry He would get angry at the hypocrisy.

And remember there in modern theology Matthew chapter 23 I Would say probably if you took a poll of the the wide Variety of New Testament scholarship That exists today. That's a large portion of that I'm not sure what the percentage would be but a large portion of that would would be Very uncomfortable, and I'd say a majority would be very uncomfortable with even saying that Jesus ever said anything like what's found in Matthew chapter 23 I would say definitely a minority would believe that those words were actually spoken by Christ and so Given that within seminaries.

It's hardly surprising to hear you have an agnostic an apostate agnostic By his own confession those are those aren't insults those are his own description an apostate agnostic who has problems allowing the entire text to stand as a as a whole and So yeah, you know There are a lot of us who've been out here saying Jesus is not the the little Lamb carrying effeminate guy of the stained-glass window no question about it the the Lordship of Christ is Not exactly helped and aided in its promulgation by such misrepresentations of Christ anyways, but anyhow Unfortunately he then does this on the basis of text.

Let's go ahead and start where I've stopped here And we'll eventually get back to what I was just playing in regards to this this very I mean did the scribes have that much.

Freedom in the work that they could just add a story.

Well, it's shocking, but you know it's it's it's shocking to my students. Just how often the the scribes would change their texts we tend to think that a I mean in our setting today. When a book is produced It's always the same book so I can go out and buy a copy of the Da Vinci Code.

And it doesn't matter what city in America. I buy the copy. It's exactly the same copy word-for-word the same. And so that's what we expect of our books. But in the ancient world they didn't expect their books to be like that because they knew that these things were always being copied by Hand and that mistakes were always being made.

So that the the very first copy of a book probably had mistakes, and then the person who copied that first copy Copied the mistakes and added some of his own mistakes. And then that third copy was itself copied and its mistakes were replicated then down through the line and so mistakes multiply through the copying Process.

Yeah, that's where we're that's where he stopped.

And I had a long discussion of what's missing there and so on so forth so.

We're finally where we needed to be. Some scribes felt completely free to to change their texts. We and would add stories or take out stories would add lines take out lines. We know this happened. This isn't just speculation.

The reason we know it happened is because we have these thousands of surviving Manuscripts. And when you look at these thousands of manuscripts the striking thing about them is just how different they are from one another.

So what are you suggesting here. That we should. That we should just like ignore that story of adultery. That that story? Has less currency than other stories in the New Testament.

Now let me just stop before he answers that how strikingly different they are from one another. You could take the most quote-unquote Alexandrian text and the most Byzantine text and if you apply the same standards of interpretation You're not going to come up with a different Jesus at least if you allow for Matthew Mark Luke and John I.

Again applying this kind of spin how different they are. Really. How different they are. I mean it to the to the person who's never examined text for criticism. It sounds like you know you'd have one manuscript over here.

My manuscript there. If you read to him you wouldn't even recognize the same Jesus in both of them, and that's absurd. That's just that's that's not the case. That just is not the case and he knows that he's well aware of that for that.

We should just see that as.

As a story that was added later and and and take it as that. How does that affect your reading of that passage in the Bible, what do you make of it?

Well, it's a very good question, and I think I think Christians who see the Bible as authoritative have to make a decision. What is it that they think is authoritative. Is the original text as it was originally written.

Is that authoritative? If that's authoritative we have a problem because we don't have the original text in many instances. But on the other hand does somebody want to ascribe, okay, what does he mean by that in many instances?

What what does that mean? Does that mean that if you have for you have a very difficult variant and let's say? Let's say you have really really difficult variants on one half of 1 of the entire text in New Testament.

So is he they're admitting that in? 99 .5 of the text. Then you do have the original and. And Inerrancy falls if there's half a percent where you have these difficulties, and you can still confess the originals there.

But the you have these difficulties and determine exactly what the original is that is that what he's what he's trying to say. I? Wish he'd just come straight out and say it. I mean it shouldn't be difficult for him to say it because he claims to have once believed it now.

He's apostatized from that he denies that. So it should be pretty clear.

When I just come straight out and say that that's an authority to a text that was that was clearly and certainly added Later to the Bible such as the story of the woman taken in adultery if you ascribe authority to these Stories that were added later to the Bible where do you draw the line?

Does it mean that anybody can add something to the Bible and then then it can count a scripture? This strikes me as a very difficult theological problem that that Theologians probably need to work on a little bit to tell tell people what actually is the Bible that's being trusted as the.

I hit the button a little bit too quick there, but excuse me you you you aren't aware of how much has been written about this. All your time at Moody and Wheaton. You you didn't you didn't run into any of this.

I suppose it's possible. I mean you know if a person doesn't want to study these things you can I guess avoid it or just you know touch on. Lightly but sorry, but Not news to people who have seriously been studying this stuff for a long time or dated scripture.

You say that scribes also often preferred the text to be easy to understand and non problematic. What do you mean by non problematic?

Well sometimes even today when somebody will be reading a passage in the Bible It'll be hard to understand or it will sound like he contradicts another passage, or it'll sound like it's Theologically unacceptable and so people will Will often put a question mark in the margin because they can't figure out what it means.

Scribes have that same situation, but they have the benefit of being able to change the passage So that it wouldn't be a problem any longer. And that that happened On a lot of occasions where scribes would make a passage easier to understand rather than harder.

All that is is saying that it is more likely for a scribe to copy in such a fashion as for his result to make sense and for it to not make sense. And that can be purposeful as in harmonizing Matthew with mark or mark with Matthew or.

That can be non-purposeful because you know the story someplace else and you harmonize it without even attempting to do so in the process by adding details because that you think it's supposed to be there and and.

You're just copying along and you just you just do it automatically you assume. This is gonna be the next word because your familiarity with the other passage, whatever it might be. All that's saying is is that it's more likely that the difficult reading is the original than the reverse.

That's that's all it is. Nothing. Nothing new whatsoever. As far as that goes unless you take these standard Scholarly categories and throw them into a book called misquoting Jesus and publish it by the same people that put all the Jesus seminar stuff and then all of a sudden you've got well what we're listening to.

Here and you offer as an example of this in your book Jesus meeting the leper.

Yeah, this is a this is a terrific story in Mark chapter 1 in most of the English Bibles available today. The way the passage goes is there's this leper who comes up to Jesus. So he has he has some form of leprosy.

We're not sure what it is exactly but this so this leper comes up to Jesus and says if you're willing You're able to make me clean and the Text then says Jesus feeling compassion for the man said I am willing and he reached out his hand and touched him and he made him clean.

In some of our earliest Manuscripts of this passage. There's a change in the text. That is really quite striking in These other early manuscripts instead of saying Jesus felt compassion for the man. So he reached out his hand and touched him it says Jesus became angry and reached out his hand and touched him and.

So scholars have to decide what what the original text probably was. Did mark originally say that Jesus felt compassion or that he felt angry and the way the argument works might sound backwards to some people but the way the argument works is that since Becoming angry is the more difficult reading to understand.

It's more likely to have been the original reading. The logic is you have to ask yourself if you were a scribe changing the text. Which text would you have been likely to have changed if you had the text in front of you that said Jesus became?

Compassionate would you be likely to want to change that to say he became angry? Whereas on the other hand of the text originally said Jesus became angry. Would you be likely to change it to say he became compassionate?

So as it turns out there's other there's other evidence that that in fact is exactly what mark originally said that Jesus became angry and then that opens up then all sorts of possibilities for interpretation and.

Let's let's stop right there If you're wondering what in the world's going on here you might want to turn to a mark chapter 1 verse 41. Mark chapter 1 verse 41. I'm looking here. It's DDD 141 133 to 139 in the book if you have the book is where the discussion is centered here now You have Let's see, why isn't this showing up here?

See it in In the book that doesn't make okay. Yes mark appears to have written it marketplaces portrays an angry Jesus. Unfortunately, he doesn't say anything more about it there. Let's see what else he comes up 141 149 maybe I'm trying to find his specific citation here because as I look at my text, yeah It is obviously important to know whether Jesus was said to feel compassion or anger in mark 141.

That's all he says That's that's that's nice. Let's um, let's look at the evidence the the term compassion in mark 141 is Is found in everything Greek Latin early translations with the exception of D capital D indicating unseal text small a ff2 and r1 that those are to say That those are minor witnesses is to A greatly overstate the case.

Okay D is notorious for being very odd Copied by someone who frequently had flights of fancy and Let's just put it this way no major witnesses to the gospel of Mark support this reading Basically all you can say looking at the text So This somehow is is is a a major thing as to whether Jesus was a mean nasty guy or he had compassion and then we have this little issue of parallel passages and If we look at parallel passages and we allow the entire text to speak what would be the proper reading here?

I again I Part of me just really gets very upset when people utilize their learning in this fashion, I Mean I It's shocking to me That someone would look at this this text. They would they would look at this particular reading and They would they would look Simply at the external witnesses just just what is there externally and Ever put it in a book as if it's somehow relevant in the way that's being presented here.

It's just it's shocking to me. I But again, I guess I shouldn't be overly surprised, you know, if you're a happy agnostic you're happy when you're cashing your royalty check So why not? But the fact the matter is that if That level of external witness Can be given The kind of weight that that airmen is giving it Then there's again once again if you apply this across Outside the New Testament.

There's no way to know anything about history at all. We don't know what happened yesterday just about I mean this kind of skepticism this kind of spin is Thankfully not shared by the vast majority of those who are involved in the study of historical texts or we wouldn't know anything About the past at all Somebody has an agenda here.

Somebody has a purpose here and That's exactly what's what's going on in this particular situation but anyhow, I Wasted a lot of time playing the clip before we got to this clip beforehand. And so What we're gonna do here if the great Grand Poobah across the way can Can handle it.

Let's go ahead and take our break, you know, 15 seconds earlier something like that and then when we come back let's get our phone caller taken care of so that he doesn't have to sit on the hold forever and I'd like to finish off with this comment from airmen before we go to D dot who?

Certainly doesn't have airmen's area edition and scholarship only he he pretended that he did basically is the real problem there so let's go ahead and take our break and Other phone calls if you need it, eight seven seven seven five three three, three, four one.

We'll be right back.

Sure. Today many stop strong and true.

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen but free. A new cult. Secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called Extreme Calvinism defines what the Reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but free you'll find it in the Reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 2 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in their book the same-sex Controversy.

James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about Homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at al min. Or.

And welcome back the dividing line looking just real quickly before the phone going to the phone call. Interesting to note that two other times in Mark, Jesus said to be angry mark 3 5 or indignant mark 10 14.

Those are right there in the text and it is interesting most probably when you have such a minor range of External evidence as you have in this situation. Especially given the character of D. The only really meaningful source that you have there.

What you've probably got going on there as to where that would come up with especially that's a completely different word. It's a it doesn't even look anything like the word for compassion at all the starts completely different letters is totally different.

Verse 43 Jesus sternly warned him that term sternly it can have the idea of of Angry and verses 43 and 41 both start with the word Chi as Does verse 42 but remember if you're copying from a manuscript that?

Has a longer lines or shorter lines? It depends exactly where each of these lines would be ending and Where your eye would be hitting the line things like that if the person was familiar with that term and felt that it was a term of Strength, you know sternly angrily.

Maybe that's where the the scribe of D got it. But the point is we have the entire rest of the manuscript tradition the entirety of it. That demonstrates and these are not the earliest manuscripts that we're referring to here that have the word anger in it.

So to have such a tiny tiny tiny Questionable group and to blow it up the way that the you know, I I know what what he's trying to do. You know when you've got so well, you know, it's difficult that that's a more difficult reading.

Well, you know, okay, but sometimes you just have to go. Yeah. But there's just not enough external evidence to substantiate that in any way shape or form and that's what the situation is there. We'll continue let's just go ahead and finish his his thought on this one and then take her phone call real quick.

But the point that I'm making in my book is just that this problem exists in the first place.

Well, yeah, it's a completely different interpretation. Isn't it if you think that Jesus became angry when the leper spoke with him as opposed to Jesus feeling compassionate?

Absolutely. It's a it's a completely different view and you know one of the one of the exercises I give my students here at Chapel Hill in my New Testament class is I have them read through the six chapter first six chapters of Mark's Gospel and to do a kind of character analysis of who Jesus is and.

They're really surprised because you know, I mean, let me stop right there because we ever heard this my accidentally played it earlier. Isn't it interesting if you read the rest of the story? He sternly warns him immediately send him away.

He said didn't see it. You say nothing to anyone but go show yourself the priest and offer of your cleansing what Moses commanded as a testimony of them. But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around to such an extent that Jesus could no longer Publicly enter a city but stayed out in unpopulated areas and they were coming to him from everywhere.

It's possible to me looking at that that the scribe of D was attempting to Put out here a almost a prophetic concept that Jesus knew that this was what this man was gonna do. Even though he sternly warned him against it and therefore he was angry that he was going to do what he was going to do.

Reading back the rest of the story basically into into that term in either case Whatever motivated it you can understand and you can come up with a motivation for the scribe you demonstrate that he is in the vast minority that that there is just simply not enough external evidence whatsoever and That in essence putting that there makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the story and in the context of the rest of what the New Testament teaches and that's why.

Only it seems Bart Ehrman and other happy agnostics have big problems with things like this as if we should totally Revamp our view of Jesus based upon a single textual variant in one particular manuscript.

Greek manuscript at least that point. Unsealed manuscript that carries any weight at all because in these chapters of Mark Jesus does not come off as the Good Shepherd of the stained-glass window. Jesus.

Jesus seems to be getting angry a lot. He He ignores his family. He rips his followers away from their own families. He's he's associates with a wild man in the wilderness John the Baptist. He himself is driven into the wilderness by the Spirit of God where he does battle with the with the demons.

He. What demons? He commands illnesses and he commands demons. He seems to be a very charismatic and powerful figure that isn't to be messed with. And this idea of him getting angry when this leper came up to him fits in perfectly.

Well with the way mark is portraying Jesus in these chapters what?

Why there's no reasons given unless we do the circuitous suggestions that I just gave. Why would that be? Perfectly well that he's why would he be angry? At a leper I can see why you'd be angry after the leper does what he does.

But what do you mean? It fits in perfectly? Well, what what this kind of? Huh, I. All I can say folks is don't send your kids to Chapel Hill. Okay, they're gonna it's like sending them to local the local Community colleges where you run into these folks that just you know.

Their their own whole purpose in life is to shred conservative Christians to come into their into their Into their classes. That seems to be the the whole thing. I keep saying we're gonna go to the phone calls.

Go ahead and.

Do that and talk with Michael once again. Hi Michael. Hello. Thank you for finally taking my call. Yes, sir. Moses of the Jewish faith the Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith and Muhammad of the Islam faith all claimed to be a true Prophet of God.

Is there a test to determine if a person actually was or is a true prophet or to rephrase a question? What are the qualifications that prove or establish that a person actually was or is a true prophet of God?

Well, the only tests that are given to us as to the issue of the identification of a prophet is twofold in Deuteronomy 13 and 18. We are given two tests the first test is in regards to a prophet who who prophesies as far as prediction of future events and He is to prophesy accurately in that event and then the one that's missed by a lot of folks is That even if a person were to prophesy a future event accurately that if they do so and Seek to take you after a another God than Yahweh.