A New Open Phones Format Show!

Greetings welcome to the dividing line gonna be a crazy one today. It's all rich Pierce's fault. It was gonna be pretty straightforward just live call-in today. But no rich rich got a little uppity today and decided that he's going to be Taking zoom calls.

I don't know how this works. We are actually having I was actually having to reinstall the phone application. And I was just happy to have that. But hey, look, you know phones. You know, I mean we were using phones when they were still attached to a wall, you know.

And there'd have to be this wire thing, you know, and so I guess from his perspective that's just too too much too much a reminder of just how old we are, especially him and So he wants to go with the techie stuff.

Zoom Call-In Setup and the New Program Format

So Evidently, there is a zoom link in the ANO ministry Twitter feed and Therefore you can. What okay. Okay. So this is how this is gonna show brought to you by rich. Hi Jack, there we go. That's that.

So this is how this is gonna work. You just simply follow the link on Twitter and When you hook up it's gonna ask for your name. And put your first name in and then dash and then to put the topic that you want to talk about in there.

That's gonna tell me because unfortunately, I can't actually talk to you while you're holding or in the waiting room. But it's gonna put you in the waiting room and I'm gonna look and go. Hey, that looks interesting.

James talk to this guy and I'm gonna put you on the air. Okay, so we're gonna try this first time and take it slow. And see we're not so we're not taking any on the regular phone line. Oh, we we have a couple of those guys there, too I gotta go them not according to mine.

We don't. Well, you might want to log back in. Because I've got I've got three here. Well, that's that's that's great because There's there's nothing on my end at all. So maybe did you reset it or something?

I don't know. I did not I reset nothing. So, but you know, we do have some some zoom guys ready to go here sort of. They're not following instructions very well. Oops. All right, so I'm gonna I'm okay.

There you are. Yep. Boom. There you go. Well, that's not good that it just sort of disconnects you like that. Yeah. Which is why you know the old analog tech. Are you having issues with Mac not liking the system here?

All right. Well, we'll see we'll see if this works. There's there's no names or anything or topics on stack on this end. Okay, so I'll yeah, I haven't had a chance to screen him yet. I'm you know, a few balls in the air over here.

Okay, so okay, but I'm about to send you a message here. So, okay. Well, I'll give you a give me a few moments. Give me the video real quick, but you're gonna have to be doing the video too. So yeah. Hey, you're making it much more complicated for yourself then.

Then I need to be but that's okay. So While Rich is doing his thing I want to Briefly very briefly a Video came and I just saw on Twitter that there's another one that was just posted by bad preacher clips which I haven't even had an opportunity to to listen to or look at or anything here and And of course I hate about Twitter.

I it was just there a second ago and Now it's gone. I you know, you you you scroll and All I find is Adam Schiff acting like it that we are we are this nation is run by some of the most incompetent Weird strange people I've ever seen in my life.

There's just no choice, but anyway. So there's another one that has been posted that I cannot find for their love no money now and That's just sort of how it works. So let me look here real quick and maybe I can find it real quick.

Yeah, so 29 minutes ago Another one from pastor Brandon Bowser was posted and I haven't even had a chance to listen to it so I'll just run through this really really quickly while you all are queuing up on the on the phones and on zoom and This may all just burn to the ground.

Like this. This could be one of those that ends up on YouTube as hey. You remember that webcast where everything just collapsed and and we never heard from either James Rich again. Yeah, they tried to do a little bit too much anyway, so we've got another IFB King James only is out there doing his thing and This is just a two-minute little thing so that way we can do it quickly but I just want to I Just felt badly for the young guy.

He's he's. He does have a nice beard so he can't be super young super super young. But I I saw somewhere. He was a youth minister and I always feel for youth ministers. I Won't go into that particular discussion right now.

But anyway, he's attempting to tell people about biblical history and Just had some had some real problems Getting it getting it all straight. So I want to help provide some correction. So let's let's listen to what he has to say.

I'll stop and start and we'll We'll then go to your calls. Okay, there's our first whoops I'm sorry. I didn't get the audio on that. Yeah, I know. Okay. Yeah, here's the problem. First thing meeting zoom quit zoom.

So I cannot be in zoom or that that will happen. So let it be on the record. That was not my fault. You said that if I went in there, maybe I could see stuff, but I can't and so there we go. So there's first thing and then the the second thing evidently is that you need That I hope.

Well, we'll see if it works. Let's try it again. Like I said, we're trying to do a lot today. Let's talk about where the King James Bible came from and where every other version came from. Okay, there's two different texts Greek texts Greek and Hebrew texts that that every single Bible in Modern that we use modernly came from okay first correction.

He says Greek and Hebrew texts. That's simply not true. The textus receptus is not a Hebrew text. The textus receptus is is a Greek text. This is what most people call the textus receptus. There is no one textus receptus.

This is Scrivener's Edition based upon the King James translation, but there is no one TR. But this is what most people are thinking of and it's English. There is no Hebrew in it there the difference between What would be considered the standard Biblia Hebraica stuttgartensia today.

And what was used at the time the King James? I I think adds up to exactly eight differences Between them. They're pretty much identical to one another. So that's first first correction. The textus receptus is Greek only it is not Greek and Hebrew every Bible either came from the Textus receptus who's written by Erasmus or the okay.

The textus receptus is not something that's written by someone. When you have a Greek text where you are using multiple manuscripts as he did. So you know as many as this guy's gonna say but multiple manuscripts as he did.

You're you're compiling. You're editing you're not writing and He's later gonna use term translated. That's not it either. So he he was actually Working on a diaglot and his emphasis initially in the first few editions was upon the Latin because that's where there was a little more danger in that because he was altering the Vulgate text and the Vulgate was considered the Sort of the official text of the church.

And so that was pretty dangerous to do. But it's not written by somebody and of course, even the one that we have today Also went through editing by Stephanus and especially by Theodore Beza, so None of that terminology would be would be accurate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus who which was written by Westcott and Hort.

Okay, so Here again is King James only us, especially who will Read Berg on or what's what's worst with King James only folks is they read someone who read someone who read someone who read someone? And by the time it gets down to that level you get this kind of Almost gibberish where it just doesn't make any sense anymore.

But like I keep saying these guys are a hundred years behind The the modern, you know, here's here's modern Greek text. It's the Tyndale house New Testament. This this is not just a reproduction of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Especially when you look at at ECM, which is still being produced but mark and axe and the general pistols route.

You have Thousands of manuscripts that are that are being utilized by by these These these texts and so the the idea that it's just Sinaiticus Vaticanus Totally ignoring the papyri totally ignoring when the papyri key texts like John 118 where where p66 and p75 have demonstrated that the readings found in Sinaiticus of Vaticanus are extremely Ancient and early back to the beginning of the of the first century.

That this kind of this kind of material just is it's completely lost these folks just don't know what this is all about because they're they're reading somebody who read somebody who read something who read something from Dean Burgon in at the end of the of the 19th century and they're literally over a hundred years behind where things actually are and so their descriptions just Have no connection to reality at all.

Now first, let's talk about the Texas Receptus the King James Bible is the only current English Bible that comes from the Texas Receptus. Which is causing? All the poor Good men who who worked so hard on the new King James version of the Bible.

To go hey, what about us? No that the King James is not the well, you could make you could make an argument. There is no way that he knows this is Scrivener. Okay, first of all. But you could make the argument that at least as far as this is concerned.

This is based on the King James. So. But no, that's the the new King James likewise is is based upon the Texas Receptus as its base text. So yeah, no now here's a little bit about the TR the Texas Receptus Erasmus the way he translated the TR was he gathered approximately 5 ,000 Manuscripts of Scripture he I mean he gathered them far and wide everywhere he could.

Erasmus right now is very happy. Erasmus is like yay. I did. Again this does illustrate something that I think is somewhat important and and that is that The work that we can do today where you literally can catalog Almost five thousand eight hundred fragments of the New Testament and know where they are and and Massive collation work has been done for the ECM the CB GM databases things like that.

But that could only have happened in the past 20 years. It could not have happened before that. Information technology was not such that would allow the collation and the collecting of all that much information.

In fact, you know people think about Trigellus Tischendorf they think about some of those early texts and how how few Manuscripts were actually involved and then you look at the the work that Hoskier did on Revelation.

And that was the first at the time anyways complete collation of one book and Then of course more discoveries are made and it's no longer a complete collation. But the point is Erasmus had Between six and twelve manuscripts not five thousand.

There was no place in the world. No one in the world in Erasmus's day had any earthly idea how many Greek Manuscripts still existed at that point. Some of those Greek manuscripts have been destroyed by fire flood war since then and many others have been found that were not known at that time and so.

The only guess I can I can take because again, he's got some notes over here on his right hand side. My guess is he's again. You heard somebody say something who said something who said something and you're three or four.

You know steps down the road now and things start getting muddled and confused. My guess is he's heard someone say that the Textus Receptus Represents the Byzantine text type which it does generally it's not the best.

It's not the earliest form of the Byzantine. It's not even the best form. It's it's sort of one Thread of The Byzantine text type from that's really based in like the 12th century or so so it's really not even the best representative of the Byzantine by by any standard, but He probably heard somebody say that the Byzantine represents, you know 5 ,000 of the 5 ,800 manuscripts and so he somehow Not having obviously read any of Erasmus or anything like that.

Hasn't hasn't read Erasmus complaining about how many manuscripts he thought he'd find in Basel, Switzerland in the library. And he didn't find and so on and so forth. He's probably conflating all this stuff together and saying oh if it represents 5 ,000 then then Erasmus had 5 ,000.

Can you imagine a single person? Collating 5 ,000. We we've got some of the best computing power in the world working on it and and still we haven't actually done that In a in a total fashion. I mean the ECMs could be close to that but but one guy who Complained that as he stood working on what what he did do with his six to twelve manuscripts at most Was complaining that the fleas were biting him and that they were actually demons.

Yeah. No. The very idea that you could do five that could collate 5 ,000 manuscripts at that time Gives you an idea of what's really going on and everywhere. He could find them. He he gathered he compiled about 5 ,000 different manuscripts.

And what he did was he compared every single one of them every Single one of them we are talking it would take one person Three four lifetimes to actually do that to any any meaningful any meaningful level and he had help with this, of course and He found about 2 of them didn't line up together didn't match Identically and so what he did with those 200 or those 2 was he threw the 2 out which obviously human error.

And and corruption, obviously, there would be a percentage of them that that didn't line up but okay, so I think what's happening here is he's he's hearing well, yeah the the Older texts quote-unquote Alexandrian texts so and so forth only represent like 2 and so Erasmus identified Erasmus had no earthly idea about any of that stuff none.

There's the you you If you say he did prove it There was no way on the small number of manuscripts He had that he could have identified text types and and any of that kind of stuff. This is pure mythology based on ignorance of The historical sources and and stuff like that.

But then this is gets repeated over and over and over again. And once you get three or four steps down the road It Starts getting a little rancid every but but that 98 of the 5 ,000 manuscripts that he got which contained the whole Bible Notice notice the whole Bible.

So now now poor Erasmus man. This guy never slept. He never ate. You know He's doing the whole Bible. He's he's doing he's doing the Old Testament too. So he had Old Testament manuscripts somehow. Maybe it was the Greek Septuagint.

I don't know. I'm not sure most King James only us don't think the Septuagint existed. But that's the only thing you would have had but hey, I don't know Lined up exactly word-for-word exact and that's where we get the Texas word-for-word exact.

Now the fact is we've identified almost all the manuscripts that he used and They are not word-for-word exact. That's the problem. He had to do textual criticism. This is this is where you get the same kind of you know in the early church when people thought the Greek Septuagint was the Standard they told stories about how you know.

The 70 scholars went into their caves and they came back out and they had a word it was word-for-word identical. Which means God inspired it so on and so forth. That's how stories like this happened.

There are no two manuscripts that are word-for-word exact and none of the manuscripts that he used were word-for-word exact. Remember, he only had one manuscript revelation. It wasn't even a manuscript.

It's commentary in Latin. But Still he had to make decisions even between his own manuscripts and the scary thing was the best manuscript he had was the one he trusted least. It was the oldest it was the best.

And the TR would be a much better Text if he had actually trusted it, but he didn't so there you go that this and this is the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Now these manuscripts were found inside of a Catholic monastery.

So notice what that what happens here is instead of recognizing Vaticanus has been known even in the days of Erasmus and that Erasmus himself Asked Bombastius his friend in Rome to look things up in the Vatican manuscript.

They don't ever want to admit that it's just a lapse of no Erasmus knew that there was a very ancient manuscript. They didn't know how ancient they didn't know how exactly how old it was. But it was known in the days of Erasmus so that's in the Vatican library and That's a long ways from st. Catherine's Monastery.

So he's conflating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the story of the finding of Sinaiticus. With evidently Vaticanus being with it or something. I guess It's hard to say because I mean anybody who knows the history is just going.

What where'd this come from? They were found with 14 ,800 alterations and corrections. Within the document itself. So this is probably in reference to either marginal notes corrections between lines. And given how given that these are both now I'm not sure if he's just talking about because he seems confused as whether he's talking about the New Testament Old Testament.

But given the number of Not only pages involved but then how long these were used. That makes perfect sense. And that's why you know entire books have been written on the various scribes of Sinaiticus and the different inks they used and how many.

Hundreds of years after the original writing you have editing being done. And this is what this whole at least at least. Well, maybe later on he goes into it. I don't know but I only have this one clip but at least he didn't go into the stuff about Sinaiticus being a forgery and Simonides and all the rest of that silly stuff that people are throwing around today when they found these Westcott and Hort when they found these.

They had so Westcott and Hort found Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, of course compiled a Greek New Testament in the 19th century and This was. They're after Tischendorf long after the finding of Vaticanus.

They they were not involved in the finding of Sinaiticus. And things like that. So again, we have just a whole lot of historical mythology. Flowing together here scribbles. They had erasures they had they had 14 ,800 different issues.

Issues contradictions. Okay, they were not contradictions, but I guess the idea being well, they're they're variants and therefore there you go. So There we'll have to listen to the next one and see what comes out of that and see if there's more fun interesting stuff to encounter, but this is.

This is one of the things real quickly and I know we've got callers. We're gonna go to him right away. This is one of the things that's a little bit scary about the IFB King James only stuff is that these guys.

Since they're afraid to listen to what's outside. Then they just keep regurgitating their own stuff and it ends up losing Accuracy over time. It doesn't become more accurate. They're not it's not iron sharpening iron.

It's water dulling iron and turning it to rust basically and You end up with this kind of just really really really bad information. So I'm hoping the brother might think through some of his his claims and maybe do some reading outside the IFB world and That would be that would be helpful at that point in time.

Colossians 2, Baptism, and Union with Christ

Okay, so I'm not sure what I was supposed to do here. Okay, so in the order that you put it. Okay, all right, so let's talk to Nick. Hi, Nick in calling via zoom. Hi, Nick Dr. White a privilege to talk to you.

Yes, sir. So you're doing the series on baptism at Apologia Church Apologia and Full disclosure. I'm a minister in the Churches of Christ However. Thanks to James White University on YouTube and the dividing line.

I am leaning toward Geneva. Quite a bit that well, then I hope you're using an anonymous name Nick. That's all I can say. Because I understand because even thinking those directions can can be yeah, okay anyway, so with that preface Colossians to baptism.

I mean we place a very high premium on baptism in Churches of Christ. And so that's For me a big a big deal and so I was listening to Colossians 2 and I was wondering about What you would say to? You went through verses 11 and 12 the Unhandmade circumcision of Christ you were circumcised.

Also, they were buried together with with Christ in baptism, they were also raised together By faith in the powerful working of God. Sort of any order I didn't I didn't I didn't I went long as it was I I was stunned when we got done I'd got an hour and 12 minutes.

I apologized for that but but one thing that I did not emphasize that that I should have or Had thought of doing is it is interesting that that phrase you just looked at in Which you were also raised up?

With him through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead that and ho is Could be attached to Christ or so in whom but normally, it's attached to the closest antecedent and That's baptism, right?

So that would be interesting to discuss I would say it is that I think I think it is baptism and so again that emphasizes the fact that we're talking here about a description of union with Christ and hearkening back to regeneration and Not to a I mean baptism becomes the picture of it.

That's what I I Understand when he talks about being buried and then raising from the dead, I think that's one reason why there is a proper mode of baptism to to maintain the picture of Union with Christ and his death burial and resurrection so that I think is lost in a lot of forms of baptism that are popular today.

But I still think that that's the whole point. Is that when it talks about the working of God who raised him from the dead? That would be one of the places we would have a very different understanding than the churches of Christ.

Primarily because of the foundation that we're bringing to everything that God does in salvation in other words I I'm I'm Holding Paul together because this is this is Colossians. Colossians and Ephesians are very closely related to one another very similar themes things like that so I'm not seeing Colossians 2 separated from Ephesians 1 3 through 11 and So I want to hear Paul saying the same things, especially and I didn't bring this up last night.

But especially because of Colossians 4 16 Where Paul says to the Church of Colossae to read the epistle that's coming from Laodicea. And I think very clearly that is Ephesians that that was that was a circular letter that was to be passed around the churches in the Lycats River Valley and so that would only emphasize the themes that are concurrent between the the two letters which includes clearly the summing up of all things in Christ and a clear a clear presentation of predestination election in Ephesians 1 and following so that provides the background and instead of it being a Human God ordained but humanly.

What turn do I want to use initiated? Action in in baptism baptism becomes a picture of something that God has done and My whole emphasis last night wasn't last night. Sorry Sunday night Was the fact that what we have here is all the way through is a focus on Christ and what Christ accomplishes.

So I just wanted to add that in there because when you said that I just wanted to point out in which you were also raised up with him and So that that's right with baptism if as you're you better have been raised up with him or you'd be bubbling pretty quickly.

It's a picture of the fact that this Baptist Christian circumcision is Pictured in our union with Christ in his death burial and resurrection. Okay, and it's a bit go ahead so then what would you say about because these the verbs the Participle as well.

They're in verse 12. Mm-hmm. These are all a orist Intense. Could We see these as then Contemporaneous with one another the the circumcision that's taking place is taking place when we're buried together and when we're raised together.

Well in baptism. Well when you're looking at participles Their their syntax is always especially when you're when you're talking about their their time frames. They're they're always Playing off of the main verb and So when you have these participial phrases that are describing these things What you want to do is you want to ask where?

Where is this coming from and that really goes back to the circumcision made without hands and that was in him and if we're correct in understanding of what this this Akira poi a toe Action is a circumcision made without hands if that is indeed rate your regeneration then that's your controlling verb and then the participles are to come after that are going to be either contemporary contemporaneous or Sometimes sometimes there is not an an emphasis upon time as there is upon Description so there's been a bit of a I'm not to get into this right now, but there's been a bit of a Revolution not revolution, but Basically if you read Greek grammars that have been written in the past about 15 years there's been a somewhat of a D emphasis upon some of the time element in Greek verbal aspect with a and it's been replaced with much more of a relationship between What's found in the context the flow of the narrative and then participles themselves likewise have become impacted by that as well.

So there isn't as much of an emphasis upon asking that between. Assuming as older grammarians did that there was a very strict Time connection between participles and their controlling verbs so you you in other words what they're saying now is if you're writing a if I was writing a commentary and I wanted to emphasize that This was concurrent or prior or after depending on whether you're talking eris and presence and all the rest of stuff now.

It would be required of you to Substantiate. That observation was something more than just simply saying Oh, this is an eris participle with this kind of a finite verb. You would have to actually come something come up with something from the context.

To say that the author was specifically attempting to make that emphasis. So I'm. That's that's something I'm obviously well aware of but haven't spent a lot of time talking about in the program because that sort of limits.

The number of people in the audience that are interested in what I'm saying. But notice the numeric serious is having been buried with him and again. Would that be in reference to the simple fact that when you're writing to a Christian congregation?

This is. One thing it's very obvious and I've been emphasizing this in my series on baptism is when you write to the Christian congregation. You can assume that the Christians in the congregation have been baptized.

The idea of an unbaptized congregant is just simply not present. It is a common experience. And it is therefore used as a description of what we have Experienced not only are we in Christ and therefore He his righteousness is our righteousness so on and so forth.

But it's also it gives unity to the body as well. Is that that fact that By baptism we are saying he and he only is His death his burial resurrection is all that I can I can ever a claim for myself. Which interestingly enough was the application I made as soon as the sermon was over which you wouldn't have seen.

Because we have the Lord's Supper each Sunday and I emphasize that in my introduction to the to the supper as well. Very good. I did have a follow-up. It's been almost two months since you did the radio free Geneva responding to the guys over at GBN Who are part of my fellowship the Christ and you invited them to debate John 6 or Something along those lines.

Did they ever respond? I you know, I don't know to be honest with you. No one has told me that they did but I've I've been traveling since then and I don't have time to necessarily You know be running around if if they have I'd like to know about it.

But no one normally someone will will point that out to me. They'll say hey, did you see that? So-and-so said? Yeah, they'd be happy to do that. No one has if if they have I would invite them to make sure that I see that because I don't have anybody who does social media stuff for me and things like that and Especially when it comes to things like Twitter.

I'm just I am just absolutely convinced that Twitter's had me shadow banned forever and I just Rich will see things 15 minutes before I see it and then sometimes he'll see things. I will never see. Because I'm just using the the web interface, so I would love to do that.

So you could reiterate that but I haven't heard one way or the other and it's it could be just because I don't I didn't Go out looking for it, but I just assumed someone would say. Oh, hey, this is great Let's let's get this set up, but I didn't hear anything.

Well, thank you for your time. Okay. All right. Thank you Nick. All right. God bless. Bye. Bye. All right, so Okay, and do you want me to do it on this end, okay. Okay, let's talk with Caleb hi Caleb.

How are you. I'm pretty good yourself. I'll be to the point because I know lots of other people had questions. My girlfriend and I are getting interested in passing out tracks and doing evangelism and that's something New to us and I know you have obviously been in this for a while and you have a lot more experience than I would.

And so I just looking for a general advice on what to include in tracks and how to approach people and in passing those out. Well.

One thing I can say is that we have a tremendous amount of material on Doing that and examples of doing that at Apologia Church because I It's almost no Day of the week that there's not some group from Apologia out doing exactly that either at Mormon Ward chapels or Mill Avenue.

You can see for example all sorts of videos Of the outreach takes place in Mill Avenue, which is by the way, that's sort of downtown Tempe right near Arizona State University. So it's University Town.

So lots of conversations with lots of people that take place down there and there's hours and hours and hours and hours of material there that that could help you to feel like you're better prepared and obviously like.

Just last week I did a Mormonism training thing on Tuesday night and I went through the basic stuff like, you know Making sure the person can see the title of the track. Don't hand it. Don't don't hand it to them upside down backwards.

Don't make them step out of their line of path to try to get it because a lot of people won't do that. You know some real practical things along a lot of those lines. It's it's really helpful to make sure you know, you're tracked real well you have a Some lines ready to use don't use the same line all night long.

Especially if there's a lot of people walking by they may have heard you Say that to the person in front of them. And so it sounds like you're just repeating the same thing over and over again sort of like a robot.

Other little little things like if there is a line of people going by and someone toward the front rejects your tract that's when it's good to have a second tract and Pull the first one back try to use a different one.

Maybe let someone walk by and then try again because just human nature is when someone sees someone in front of them rejecting a tract. They're more likely to do it themselves so just there's there's all sorts of little things like that obviously the smile on the face and It doesn't take long to realize what the title of the tract may Cause people to say in response and so you want to have thought through.

Maybe the first few exchanges as to why are we out here? What this is about? You know things like that but yeah, it's just a matter of getting your feet wet and I'll just tell you one story. Then we'll we've got a bunch of bunch of bunch of people.

So I'll just tell you one story. We were up in Salt Lake City years and years ago and my son came up with me the first time he was just a little kid and This I turned around just in time to see this Mormon take a tract from him and He reached for my son, so I started moving at that point but he reached for my son and he He took the tract and he he pulled my son was wearing a nice little white shirt and a rush limbaugh tie a little 14 inch one for kids and he pulled the front pocket open and shoved the tract into it and then patted it and walked away right as I arrived and my son had this look on his face like Wow, what just happened and I said well son, you just got your first rejection taken care of the rest will be nice and easy.

So there really there really is a sense in which once you get the first angry. Getting cussed out by somebody. It's very gets a little bit easier after that and you because you a lot of people go out and I don't want that to happen well, it's gonna so Once it does and it's sort of like okay.

I didn't die. And so there you go. So you you you press on from there, but it is it is always helpful to have a group Even if someone's just standing by praying for you. It's it's it's always good to have somebody out there keeping track of stuff and these days.

Honestly, it doesn't hurt if that person standing off to the side has a has a video running, you know. There's all these there's there's all these cameras that are available that will run for hours and hours and hours now it's always good to have video proof of what's really going on out there because People can say I heard this person saying X Y or Z and it's like well The fact the matter is the video was running and so we can prove whether we did or didn't so that's that's pretty wise too.

Okay.

All right, and I appreciate it. God bless you and may God keep you from the communist cookie monster.

Okay. Thanks Caleb. God bless. Bye. Bye. All right. So I'm looking at oh my goodness 12 waiting on zoom. So, where do you want me to go next then go back to zoom and talk to Jordan. Hi Jordan. Hi, dr. White.

Can you hear me? All right, I can. How are you? I'm good my question has to do with.

Soteriology as presented in this in the synoptics.

So John is not a pretty not not a subject I would suggest that you use on the first date or anything like that. No, no, it'll probably be the last date. All you have to do to verify that is ask rich because he did that for a long time.

Yeah, no, that's not uh, that's not the topic of conversation right off the bat for sure. And if it were maybe I would know right away that's the one but anyway, that's true that's true. There you go.

Okay, so John seems pretty clearly to be about faith in Christ for salvation. At least on a cursory reading like compare that to the synoptics. It seems like the synoptics talk a lot about following You for example the rich young ruler Sell all you have come follow me and so in John it also seems like It's clearly tying into the propitiation that Christ is going to go and offer for his people in the synoptics.

Is that present there and I'm just not seeing it because I and this is also kind of going into some Some evangelism stuff with Muslims that I've talked with who say look in the synoptics. It's all about the kingdom of God for Jesus and following him and stuff and it has nothing to do with his death and resurrection and salvation is it has nothing to do with you know, that kind of thing and so um.

May maybe you know, you can help me out understand this, you know, what is soteriology about in this synoptics? Is it any different than it is in John? Is it presented any differently than it is in John?

Or is it just using different words pretty much?