August 16, 2005

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 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.

Looking Back at the 1989 Robert Funk Radio Debate

Well, good morning, welcome to the dividing line on Tuesday August the 16th that gives us a very small amount of time. Week from tomorrow is my last Day home for a while. I leave on Thursday the conference begins on Friday and the debate is on Saturday the cruise begins the 29th on Monday and the second debate is on Tuesday the 30th.

I think that's what it is. That's that's what I think it is. Whether that actually, you know meshes with reality. I will find out in time I suppose but It is here. We we are in the in the stretch run.

Shall we say and it is definitely definitely exciting and I Have a couple I was when I was in Georgia last weekend. I spent Sunday afternoon beefing up my DaVinci code presentation expanding it out and I expanded it out to deal also with both John Dominic Croston and Robert Funk and one of the things I thought of At the time if I had time, I don't think I actually had this stuff on my laptop at the time.

So I couldn't have done it, but for the conference, I'm going to add in some of the audio from a 1989 radio program and in that 1989 radio program myself and some others were Asked to come into a secular radio station.

In fact, this this talk show host is still on the air here in Phoenix all those years later and to talk with Robert Funk now you get toward the end of what I'm gonna play here and and you'll see that he claims That the station had promised him that he would not have to talk to any fundamentalists and you know when you read Robert Funk's 21 theses of the coming Reformation and You you sense the the venom Flowing through dr. Funk's words his utter detestation of Quote-unquote fundamentalism.

I don't I don't know if he just had some bad experience or just what but anyway He Not actually I'd forgotten. I completely forgotten. This is 1989, you know, you forget details about stuff from 1989 and And You definitely forget what what your hair looked like and what your glasses looked like 1989 but I think you forget that for a different reason.

But anyway, I Had forgotten he was on for 90 minutes. We went back and forth like 90 minutes and There was only as I recall 30 minutes left when Robert Funk hung up on us and and told us to to go to hell and Well, we'll play that section too, but it was interesting listening to the the the back-and-forth.

He had been going on and on on no one had really said much it's like the if I recall correctly the fellow in studio was sort of asking me to sort of get in there get things going and I'd already done a lot of radio not only working on radio from the time I was in high school, but I had been on KFYI a lot.

I'd been on with Tom like a 16 times when he was on KFYI and I had been on with Barry Young before who is the the the talk show host here and and Once or twice with with some other folks on there, but on the other station There's two talk stations here in the valley that compete with each other now there's three but no one knows about the third one yet and anyway, so We finally started doing some interaction and it's it's really interesting to listen to now I remembered portions of it, but this is probably the first time I've listened to this and I don't know a good Decade or more, but anyhow I want to play a couple of the sections.

They're not overly long. From the 1989 what had happened was the GIS seminar had met. This was their fourth year. They started in 85 and and they had just come up with the conclusion that Jesus did not say any of the sayings about his coming Back, so he wasn't coming back.

Jesus didn't say it was coming back. So he's not coming back. And of course all the All the newspapers picked this up and it was it was all over the place. They've never shied away from publicity. Let's put it that way.

And so that's what prompted this and there were some other pastors in the in the room. With me, but no one who really I mean I was I was at Fuller Seminary at the time I was just about to graduate. I was taking a class that time where where I was having to read the very Material that this guy says I don't know anything about and having having to interact with a lot of this stuff and and so it was.

It was quite interesting. So that's the background and and finally we got into a discussion. It's interesting I had forgotten that one of the main things I raised was the presuppositions the assumptions upon which dr. Funk and his form of theological inquiry shall we say Functions which of course now that I've been spending all this time preparing to debate John Dominic Crossan is Still the same issue.

It's it's that's where you have to start and even though, you know, I think about 1989 how many books that are Central to dealing with the GSM. I didn't even exist at that time. They're the vast majority of the literature that you'd be looking at today has come out since then so In in some ways much better prepared to deal with this today Obviously just simply from the literature.

Then then back then but anyways, here's a here's the first section of the of the three.

Or over I don't know the single critical scholar who really mounts an argument that any of the Gospels were written by followers of Jesus.

Immediate followers of Jesus. Excuse me. Would you consider dr. FF Bruce's being a scholar?

Well, he's really marginal to the modern Christian movement. He's the only marginal, but wait a minute now. He's just about the only one that can be cited. How about dr. Leon Morris? Dr. Morris. How about that same carry same character?

You see what you're talking about are people that are really on the fringes.

Modern biblical scholarship. I'd like to point out that for example. My graduate work is at Fuller Theological Seminary and individuals such as that would be considered very mainline.

I'm afraid that this is a hopeless kind of conversation. I want to point out to you. The very obvious fact that you don't have anybody representing any of the mainline churches in this conversation other than myself.

What do you mean that that says an awful lot about the kind of people you have to find?

The I'll pick it up. It is one positive the kind of people you have to. Up to this point 89 is when I went from a Southern Baptist Church to a Reformed Baptist Church, so you'll hear me mention the Southern Baptist Convention here, but.

It's just the kind of people he's gonna get even more.

Animated as it goes along. Who can champion this sort of. You think we're kind of scratching the bottom of the barrel here.

Oh, who do you identify as mainline churches? Would you consider for example the 14 million members Southern Baptist Convention to have anything to do with really being dominated by a very small group?

I'm sorry to say most of the Southern Baptists I know would like to be a part of this process, but are being forced by many this conversation. And I think that's really very unfortunate that we're having the Inquisition all over again.

Well, I'm not a part of any kind of Inquisition sir, and I am referring to that as something which you approve. I take it. I know I Don't necessarily approve that at all, but I am pointing out that for example individuals such as dr. Bethel Bruce or dr. Leon Morris are not in any way shape or form fringe element scholars in at all your.

Definition. I'm going they are. I'm afraid you just don't know the scholarly literature. You might do that. I do sir.

No, I'm afraid you don't so it one thing that had definitely stuck with me over the years was the fact that the dr. Funk Defines he feels he has the the the ability to define what scholarship is and if and if you're not.

If you're a quote-unquote Fundamentalist then you can't possibly be a scholar. It's just it's just not possible and and when you put someone like like FF Bruce I mean come on there are times. I look at FF Bruce and go ah Where'd you come up with that so?

You know most of the time yeah, we're doing we're doing just fine, but FF Bruce's. Obviously the vast majority of folks identify The fact that it is it is Robert Funk who's on the fringe, but when you're on the fringe everybody else looks like They're on the fringe.

I guess as far as you can see Yes, I have I've been instructed to mention that this is part of number 429 on the mp3 list. Thank you very much. I'm a marketing genius earning anyway. So that's the first clip I have.

Here's here's the second clip will be adding into our our PowerPoint a presentation here. Obviously you are in the minority amongst all these words in the witch hunt. I'm not on a witch hunt.

Something like that he called you stupid. I'm fascinated to find out why you feel. This is an Inquisition. I don't see it. Is that it's just a discussion with three guys dressed in you know coat and tie sitting here.

And I imagine you're probably the same way is the reason it turns out. I mean they kill people at an Inquisition. Oh, that's what these people are doing. Well I don't think they've threatened your life.

I haven't heard that.

Even even the host very young it's like well. What is this Inquisition stuff Inquisition witch hunt? You know all this stuff to try to you know create this idea that we're the we're the persecuted minority.

We're the scholars that these people are trying to kill us, and you're just like wow okay? There's a real real persecution complex going on here and so anyways eventually what happened and you can't hear this in the in the in the clips, but We are in a commercial break, and I like it says 90 minutes in.

I'd forgotten that I thought it was like half an hour In but but now that I think back on it. Yeah, we have been going for 90 minutes. Which you know in radio is how many minutes of actual talk? It's not a whole lot when you do all the commercials and you know breaks and news and all that kind of stuff so.

What happens is you know I like I said, I've done a lot of radio, so I'm the first one to notice I see Barry young looking through the Control room window, and I see him using his talk back and and something's going on and pretty quickly I figure out funks gone.

He's he's hung up on us, and I see Barry going. He said what he said what get him back get him back. And so so we come back on the air, and you can you can swell you'll you'll hear exactly what happened dr. Funk are you there?

We're gonna try to call him. Oh, hi doc dr. Funk. We lost the line here. Yes, you lost the line intentionally. Why is that sir? Well? I really don't. This conversation is not a good conversation I'm not interested in carrying it on.

I'm sorry. Did you tell our producer to tell us to go to hell? Yes, I did. You told you lied to me yesterday your producer lied to me nobody lied to you. Oh, yes, you know no you told you told our producer and our guest and all and me to go to hell.

I did indeed and you're a biblical scholar. Yes, I did. Why do you want us to go to hell sir. Good place to go. Hell is a good place to go? Why is that. Well, I'm sorry. I'm not interested in pursuing the conversation.

Why is that sir well? Have you been treated in some way well? It's not a profitable conversation. Have you been mistreated in some way? Only I was misled you were misled. In what way. Well I was told I would not carry on the conversation that from people who represented the fundamentalist point of view.

No sir. You were not yes. No. And sir if you were guaranteed that why did you go on the air for 90 minutes you were not guaranteed that all right. Well I'm gonna cease right now. Thank you, so you want us to go to hell okay?

Well there you have it biblical scholar dr. Robert Funk. Definitely one of the more entertaining.

Experiences. I Wanted to replay this to say listen to what that now remember these these guys know how to work the media. You know I mean they just know how to Get out there on the radio all the time and and funk likes to throw these these these hand grenades out there that he knows is going to.

You know grab all this attention, and it's gonna make everybody mad. But he clearly does not like fundamentalists. And listen listen to what he said there. Well.

I was told I would not carry on the conversation that from people who represented the fundamentalist point of view. No sir. You were not. Yes. I was no. Of course you weren't guaranteed that you were not.

And or I said I wouldn't go on the air I You know if if this is so Compelling from his perspective Then why not go on the air of them if he was beating us up and and showing us to be The the the stooges that he obviously believes quote-unquote fundamentalists are whatever he thinks that means I I think from his perspective I mean if FF Bruce is fringe then you can see where his mindset is on on these things and and You know when I once I read his 21 theses the coming Reformation.

It was pretty Pretty clear. You know how how that ended up coming to fruition, but anyways it was I was guaranteed I would not have to talk to a fundamentalist now. You know I don't know what happened with KfY they just called me up as I recall.

I only had one day notice. I think I got called in the afternoon is next morning, so boom. That's just that's just how it is. I I guarantee if this debate was with was with With with him with with funk it would be a whole lot different.

We'd have to have bouncers and stuff like that be very different, but anyway Moving very much from there to a completely different Attitude shall we say I Have yet to play and well at least I think I have yet to play.

Any oh no no I did I did I did last week. I'm sorry. I apologize last week or last dividing line we played a section with Marcus Borg and Nt right going back and forth on cue and on John 11 which left a lot of people really confused as to why Nt right Would be saying that John 11 that Lazarus didn't actually die.

He was resuscitated that that it was a sort of the swoon theory type thing. And everyone who's come in I was like what on earth is he talking about remember? This is the same Nt right that is so popular At certain formally reformed book distribution places and so popular with with so many people for brilliant insights.

And there are times he does have Brilliant insights, I remember the first time I read some some comments He made on the Carmen Christie in Philippians 2 5 to 11. It was it was great, but then you turn the page and you run into this.

You know it there you just never know what you're gonna get when you're reading Tom right and so anyways we listened to that last week and So I wanted to play a section where it's just Borg without right.

This is this is a different year. It's not a dialogue type thing and he's talking about his view of allegory and myth and the Bible Issues like that to give you more of an insight into this mindset because I I I spoke on some Crossin issues shall we say in regards to the gospel on?

Sunday morning at Phoenix foreign Baptist Church in the adult Sunday school, and I could just tell no matter how hard I was trying as I as I watched The expressions on people's faces for the majority of them.

They're just looking at me like No way, I mean how can he say that? Because then that would mean this and that would mean this and there's just such a huge chasm Between where the folks at my church are thank God and where where John Dominic Crossan is theologically that trying to bridge it is Pretty difficult to do it really is no matter how often I tried to illustrate the the thought Process that was that was involved and so maybe this will help just a little bit if if you're still wondering You know how can people come up with these types of conclusions?

This is from a lecture on the Bible and tradition by by Marcus Borger is sort of it starts off with a It I think a very illustrative saying From a Roman Catholic priest that really helps you to get an idea of where these folks are really coming from.

The second one is a line from a Catholic priest that was forwarded to me by a Catholic friend of mine in an email. And the email said our priest said a great thing in his sermon last Sunday. What he said was quote The Bible is true and some of it happened.

There now there that's. That's the the disconnect That you have to work through to be able to quote-unquote hear these folks in their own context. The Bible is true and some of it happened now the first thought in the logical person's mind is well, it doesn't sound like what he's saying is the Bible is true, and it contains different kinds of Literary devices such as parables and the parables didn't quote-unquote happen.

They're not being recorded as a historical event. They are parables and hence that's the whole point of a parable is to tell a story and so on and so forth. That's not what he's saying. What he's really saying is that you know there are some elements of The biblical story and primarily the gospel stories That took place.

I mean Jesus was born. It's just that all the stories about how he was born aren't true. They okay and see I'm they are not historical they are true. But they didn't happen. What does that mean? Well, they are true in That they communicate Concepts that we can embrace and be better people so The gospel stories as long as they commute to communicate to us the idea that we should Seek social justice are true.

When when we miss that then they're not true. So truth and false whether something's true or false is not a historical issue. It is a metaphorical issue if you can make a metaphorical application that you can call it true.

Whether it actually happened or not. See that's that's the concept. So the Bible is true and some of it actually happened. That gives you at least a peek into the mindset which allows someone to say No, Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Physically nothing happened to the corpse of Jesus but I'm a Christian and I celebrate the resurrection and you you go ah and the whole point is well, I Live in the light of Jesus teachings. So his teachings are a continuing element of my spiritual experience and therefore he's resurrected so obviously the same would be true of Buddha a Muslim who lives in the light of Muhammad's teachings then evidently Muhammad rose from the dead too in the same context in the same way as Jesus did that's like.

And I should have I should have queued this one up and I apologize for that and I I need to find this so I can I can Transcribe it on myself, but when Someone in the audience asked John Dominic Crossan about the deity of Christ.

It's it one thing. It has been very troubling listening to these Chautauqua lectures. Listening to these very very very very very left-wing liberal Audiences is to hear people who say, you know I was raised to believe these things and now I've been enlightened and I've come to realize, you know Just just what the truth is and and this one person is asking about well, what about the deity of Christ?

What about? You know the divinity of Jesus. What do you what do you do with that? And He says well, well, of course the Jesus of faith is divine. All he's saying there is is that the history of the church Presents a divine Savior in the creeds.

That's all he's saying. The the the Christ of faith does not exist in the real world. That's what you need to understand. He's not there there you. It's just a concept. It doesn't have he doesn't have existence in the real world or in the spiritual world or anything else for that matter from from that Perspective and so as he's talking about Jesus as divine as a son of God.

You know, he talks about how we are we are particular but to be particular does not mean that we have to be exclusivistic we say Jesus is Everything to me Jesus is the only Savior for me but of course what he finds to be extremely Reprehensible is when we say and he's the only Savior for anybody else and therefore if you don't know him You're not going to be saved.

Oh, that's horrible. That's terrible. No, that's not what Jesus intended. See that's what what he What he's trying to say and so at one point it really comes out clearly. Because what he's saying is Jesus was divine because people saw in his face what God wants us to be and The things that he did and remember he doesn't believe that Jesus ever healed anybody that means actually changed a disease when he touched the leper that healed the leper by breaking the social taboos about The leper it the leper was still a leper.

Well, actually he doesn't he argues that leper it wasn't leprosy anyways, but it was some sort of skin disease, but it made him Socially unacceptable and since Jesus broke the taboo he healed him, but it was psychological it actually nothing actually happened to the man physically but he was he felt acceptance and so that's what healing is see and So he was he was saying, you know the things that the words of Jesus said so on so forth that these were So spectacular to the people so unusual to the people that that's why he was considered quote-unquote divine.

But then he gives you a real insight by saying and if Michael Jordan Had lived in the first century. He would have been considered divine in the same way because of what he is able to do. So that's what divine means is out of the ordinary Not divine as in deity and and don't think for a moment that dr. Crossan doesn't know the difference.

He was he was a Roman Catholic priest and at the very least he knows what the creeds are. He knows what the hypostatic Union is. He knows what the Nicaea said and so When you hear these folks speaking One of one of the advantages to the Chautauqua Lectures is That they're speaking in their own context.

They're speaking in in family shall we say and they tend to say things a little more freely and In fact, I'd have to I'd have to confess that There does seem to be with the Jesus seminar. They they do try to sort of figure out what their audience is and They do tend to somewhat, you know Shape their presentation to the audience.

And so I'm sort of wondering you know, I remember listening to the debate that dr. Crossan did against William Lane Craig at Moody Church and It was Different shall we say Certainly different than his conversation with NT right?

Now does that mean he's changed his viewpoint? I don't think it I don't think it does mean he's changed his viewpoint I think what it means is He recognizes that he's going to be in a very different context in Moody Church, then he's going to be in a dialogue with NT right at a seminary and So there's there's a difference in presentation.

It does come out now. Obviously, I'm not saying there's something wrong necessarily with Making sure you're communicating with your particular audience. But when you recognize your audience isn't gonna like what in the world you have to say, that's a little bit different.

Why the Bible Is Not a Merely Literal Text

Okay, it's just a little bit different. Let's continue on with this then. We'll take our break in just a moment.

And Let me try to make the same point yet one more way. And I begin by noting that in popular English today. We sometimes use the word literally in an emphatic way. To mean really as in the expression he literally blew his top.

Think about that He literally exploded. And that's a helpful realization. Because I wonder sometimes when I am asked do you think the Bible is literally true? Is the person really asking me do I think the Bible is really true?

They might be asking do you think it's literally true. And Sometimes people are say I believe the Bible is literally true. What they're really saying is I Really believe it's really true. And it's always worth exploring that the point being something can be really true without being literally true.

Fourth point under metaphor. When we don't recognize metaphor in the Bible We risk making parts of the Bible incredible. Again, because myths that are literalized become incredible.

Let me stop right there because this this is a little bit longer section and it's important to understand that from their perspective, honestly, they really really believe that if you read the historical portions of the Gospels as being Historically true, you know the sections where they actually talk about historical people historical places historical events.

If you actually read them as if they're actually trying to tell you something happened in history. You're emptying the text of its meaning. They really believe that the quote-unquote higher meaning. And again folks who've studied church history you're going Wow origin lives again, this is this is the kind of Allegorical metaphorical interpretation that plagued the church in the Middle Ages that can never ever give you a Consistent body of divine revelation because it's all just up to whatever you see in the metaphor.

Yeah, that's you got it. Just it's come back around from a completely different perspective now, and that's the same thing. We're dealing with but anyways We will continue with dr. Marcus Borg right after we take our break.

We'll be right back.

Do your best and nothing less to be blessed. Try to save your soul from death. It's all works righteousness, you know. Can I manufacture grace myself? Some religious place by weeping hard on your face.

Is the Bible true. Never before in history has the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures been so viciously attacked by those outside the pale of orthodoxy. And within the walls of traditional evangelicalism itself.

Join us August 27th 2005 at the Sea-Tac Marriott for an historic debate between evangelical Christian apologist Dr. James R. White and world-renowned Jesus seminar co-founder and Bible skeptic. Dr John Dominic Crossan as they debate a topic which every Christian should be concerned about.

Is the Bible true. Seating and tickets are limited. So call today 877 -753 -3341 or visit a o m i n org to reserve your seat today. That's eight seven seven seven five three three three four one to be a part of this historic event.

That will illuminate the fault lines of faith between conservative and liberal Christians alike. More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language. James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself. They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.

We are listening to dr. Marcus board discussing the Bible and tradition right now. Asserting that when you read what was meant now remember the authors whoever they were and You heard funk saying he doesn't know the single critical scholar that would argue that anything in test was written by an eyewitness the events of Jesus.

Which tells you again how he defines who scholars are. But The the concept is that these authors intended What they were writing to be interpreted in an allegorical metaphorical fashion. That's what they intended they evidently.

The the church has just missed it all along even though they do favorably refer to the the allegorical interpretation of origin others but anyone who would follow a grammatical historical interpretation and you know examining context and so on so forth.

You just missed the boat you've just completely missed the boat and That's it's Obvious from their perspective. That's not How you should interpret these things because look folks people don't walk on water.

So in other words you assume a naturalistic presupposition and Then read them from there. So anyways, that's that's where Borg was starting here or irrelevant.

And what I mean by irrelevant is that a literal factual? Reading of a story can often flatten the meaning of the story. Quick example the wedding at Cana. You're all familiar with that story in a general way.

It's at the very beginning of the second chapter of John. It's that story in which Jesus changes roughly 150 gallons of water into wine. Now to say something about its literary context in the Gospel of John, this is the opening public scene of the ministry of Jesus and John's Gospel the inaugural scene.

Each gospel writer by the way uses the inaugural scene of Jesus public activity to say. What Jesus is most centrally about mark, for example the opening public scene is Jesus saying the kingdom of God is at hand and Mark's story of Jesus is about the nearness and the coming of the kingdom of God.

Well, John does that with the wedding at Cana? So John is saying you want to know what the story of Jesus is about? It's about a wedding banquet. Now. Let me remind you of how that story begins the opening words of that story are on the third day whoop-da.

Yeah, already the resonances, you know, and then the next words on the third day There was a wedding and all the rich resonances of the wedding of heaven and earth the mystical resonances associated with that language plus of course the resurrection resonances and Then it goes on to describe a wedding banquet.

Okay. What what is this story about? What is the story of Jesus about? What is the gospel about the story of Jesus is about a wedding and it's about a wedding banquet. At which there are copious amounts of food and wine.

Indeed, it's about a wedding banquet at which the wine never runs out and the best is saved for last. That's what this story is about. Now a literal factual reading of that text would probably go something like this, you know Jesus changed 150 gallons of water into wine.

He must really have been something he must have been the Son of God if he could do stuff like that and You end up with some kind of proof of the divinity of Jesus and you miss all those Metaphorical resonances if you think John is simply reporting something that happened.

Now let's let's stop it right there. Aside from the of what it means that the wine You know, you know, I'm sorry I see on TV all the time you can you can you can read the stock report that way and make it sound exciting but aside from that doesn't John chapter 2 verse 11 say This the first of his signs Jesus did it Canaan Galilee and Manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him.

Now unless there's going to be some argument made that that's a later amendation That's a later redaction then the text says This was a sign. It was a sign Connected to the manifestation of his glory and it resulted in his disciples not Metaphorically thinking about something down the road.

It didn't metaphorically result in disciples going on. There's going to be a lot of food in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, we see None of that took place. Instead the text itself and There's they can't come up with a shred of evidence that verse 11 Wasn't written by the exact same person who wrote verses 1 through 10 interprets this to mean this is the beginning of the signs that Jesus did at Canaan Galilee and manifested his glory and Let's remember again.

Let's look at the text in a meaningful fashion. This comes after chapter 1 Which has the John the Baptist material in it? And of course it has the prologue the first 18 verses which are truly meant in this context To function as the interpretive lens through which you are to read the entirety of the gospel.

How can you read manifested his glory in? A Jewish context without Going back to in the beginning was the word. I mean it all fits together. It's wonderfully harmonious when you take it in its whole, but that's what these folks never do.

You have this this and did you catch the the the language? Catch the Let me let me play it for you again. Listen, listen to listen to Marcus Borg doing fundamentalist. That's what this story is about.

Now a literal factual reading of that text would probably go something like this. You know Jesus changed 150 gallons of water into wine. He must really have been something. He must have been the Son of God if he could do stuff like that.

And you end up with some kind of proof of the divinity of Jesus and you miss all those Metaphorical resonances if you think John is simply reporting something that happened.

See fundamentalist can't even say the word something. Stuff like that. You can just tell that this is the the picture here is of someone in Alabama evidently. And that's that's what quote-unquote fundamentalism is is that seriously dealing with the text just because you look into it and say oh I I See this and I see that and this makes me special.

That's what origin did. Anybody can do that with anything it takes no special effort at all To forget about what the original writer Communicated in his context in his own words. It takes no effort whatsoever to just simply forget all that and then go oh I feel it means this that that's not work.

That's that's not hard the problem is. No, two people are gonna come up with the exact same reading of it. Okay. I'll take that back. Obviously a lot of people would rather let you do the work of looking through that and they'll go.