Robert Sungenis and the Bodily Assumption of Mary

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 at 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341.

Opening the Review of Robert Sungenis and the CARM Encounter

And now with today's topic here is James White and welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. Probably won't be taking phone calls today have much to do and not enough time to do it probably. Extending well, definitely extending into the next program as well on Thursday.

Lord willing. We could go yesterday on the CARM radio program Matt slick and Robertson Janice got together and I've had a lot of people contacting me a lot of people's questions about what was said about the the information that was shared and a lot of questions about how to answer some of the things were raised by Robertson Janice and so I want to go through this and I do so without any animosity whatsoever toward Matt slick.

I just very very clear that. From the very beginning of the program that Matt did not know who? Robertson Janice is or was and that led to some I think serious problems. Because Robertson Janice has been engaging in debates for a long long time.

In fact, if you go to YouTube or go to our website, you will see that I have debated Robertson Janice five times. One was one of the few two-man debates I have done. That was at Boston College back in the mid 90s.

I remember that well Mr. Zins and myself took on Robertson Janice and Scott Butler on the subject of the papacy. That was a very very interesting debate there at Boston College. We've debated up in in Salt Lake City was the last time that we debated a number of years ago.

I believe that was also on the subject of the mass that time. We debated on Long Island. We did a debate on the subject of The mass there and the next year on justification. The mass debate was one of the nastiest debates I've ever been in.

In fact, if you want to go to my youtube channel and look up when you're did when your debate opponent gets nasty. You will pull up some clips from that particular encounter. Thankfully the debate on justification was a little less Rankerous shall we say and so Bob's and Janice is well known amongst Roman Catholic apologists.

He was one of three people who were representing the Roman Catholic side in the great debates back. And I believe 1994 1993 in Los Angeles. When He and Patrick Madrid and a fellow by name Martian er debated Rod Rosenblatt and Michael Horton and Robert Godfrey.

It was a two-day debate on solo scriptura and on solo feed a. The best I can say is thankfully solo feed a went better than solo scriptura did. And so he has written a number of books. I have one in my hand called not by scripture alone.

Actually, he didn't write this there was there was a number of other people that also contributed to this, but he was one of the editors and He wrote a number of chapters. Anyways, at least two of the major chapters, but he's also written written not by bread alone.

Not by faith alone. The problem is that his next book should probably just be titled alone period. Because Robertson Janice is no longer in the mainstream of Roman Catholic apologetics. It's one of the reasons that I have not debated him in a long time.

I will be debating him three times this fall. Mainly because we can't get any of the mainline apologists to debate anymore. Witness our recent encounter with Tim Staples and how excited Catholic answers has been to make that debate available to their listeners.

And how excited? Tim Staples has been to respond to the many emails I've sent to him, which means he hasn't responded at all but the point is that Robertson Janice for a long time was one of the up-and-coming stars a Convert from well from a number of different things interestingly enough an MA in theology from Westminster Theological Seminary and then he went to work with Harold Camping.

Yes. He worked for Harold Camping for a number of years now. This was a little bit before Harold Camping got completely loony. But still rather interesting and in fact his his story is is one of well, it's very interesting he goes from one group to another group to another group and If I'm recalling correctly and I may be wrong about this.

But I think there was even a stint in the International Churches of Christ if I recall I could be wrong about that but that's that's. Seems familiar to me, but be that as it may the fact is once he he converted.

He was you know in this rock and friendly with Catholic answers. He was an idiot EWTN. And then thing the wheels start falling off and basically In my opinion Bobson Janice is still a Protestant at heart.

And what I what I mean by that is that as we listen to the encounter between himself and Matt slick. He will at one point say look Matt. I'm a Catholic apologist. I know what this means. Well there there is no such office as Catholic apologists.

Bobson Janice is not an official of the Roman Catholic Church in any way. He's not a priest. He's not a bishop. He's not a part of the Magisterium the Magisterium as far as I know has never assigned him to any position of leadership or Biblical theology or anything like that and today there are a number of Catholic apologists that Really are significantly more down on Bobson Janice Than People outside of the Roman Catholic realm would be.

I know that Mark Shea and he don't get along very well at all and That's not overly surprising but in particular they point to two areas of Bobson Janice's theology that they find to be extremely problematic and that is he's a geocentrist.

Bobson Janice believes that the the Sun Circles around the earth and that the earth is the center of the universe that everything circles around the universe that the Roman Catholic Church Was was wrong to have condemned Galileo You know back in the olden days and so on and so forth and if you want to Do that dance with him you can go ahead and do that dance with him because he he will defend it till the cows come Home, but he is a geocentrist.

And there are geocentrists who are non Roman Catholics, by the way I brought this up once and found out that someone who at that time was a regular in our chat channel was a geocentrist and So I'm like, okay.

Well, all right, not gonna get into that one but also He his views on the Jews is very much out of line with the current leadership of the Roman Catholic Magisterium shall we say and so this has caused all sorts of difficulties all sorts of issues and has led to his Marginalization hence.

I my statement that his next book should be just titled alone because he pretty much is alone. He's no longer on EWTN. You don't find him on In any of the mainstream Roman Catholic apologetics venues, etc, etc.

So I guess I I have the appropriate right to say that it does seem that the constant Argumentation provided Roman Catholics against sola scriptura about how divided Protestants are is somewhat refuted by the very state of Roman Catholic apologetics itself looking at people like Jerry Matta ticks and Bob St Janice and things like that now now mr. St. Janice, dr. St. Janice will argue very strongly that he is is absolutely orthodox and Even more orthodox than his critics.

That's fine I leave that to them to argue. It only demonstrates that their arguments against sola scriptura make no sense whatsoever but the fact the matter is That there is this division that exists and he is not from his own profession a set a vacant is as Jerry Matta ticks is some people have tried to Say that he is but he disagrees with that and again, that's fine, too I'll let those guys on that side of the fence fight that one out.

But the point is that there are a lot of people who are troubled by St. Janice's unique views and Yet his material especially his material in his books against sola fide and against sola scriptura are widely used by Catholic apologists every single day I've had many a Catholic say well, you know I it's a shame about what's happened Bob St. Janice because I thought it was really good and I found his material really useful and and part of that is because he will readily use the Greek language and he He will throw out a lot of material that the other Catholic apologists are not quite as Quick to do so or comfortable doing so and he exudes confidence.

He really does and we'll see that in his encounter with Matt slick. So I think my my biggest criticism for for Matt here is I think Matt did real well for not knowing what he was walking into. I don't I don't know how you bring someone on to your program and not realize that the man has years of experience in Roman Catholic apologetics and has Experience in Greek and so on and so forth.

He's published books that are big huge books and he's very happy. They're big huge books. In fact, he will even mention how many pages there are in his books in the encounter. I don't I don't know how you you bring Catholic apologists on and You're just completely unaware of who they are what they've done the debates they've done and things like that that leads to well bad things and So it's one of the reasons we're looking at this.

But I think it did real good for not. I mean if if I had never prepared to debate Bob St. Janice, it would be ugly. But that's why I'm Relistening to all the previous debates. I've done with Bob St. Janice and looking at his website and downloading stuff and doing that long hours of preparation For the debates we have coming up this fall.

That's just simply something you have to do. It's it's necessary. So With that, let's let's start listening to the encounter. I'm gonna be stopping starting. There's important stuff to me. What I want this to do is to edify the Saints.

It seems That yes, man talk about getting old. It seems that a lot of folks who have become involved with the ministry listening to dividing line Aren't really familiar with what I did pre 2000 or so.

It's sort of like what have you done lately and so Debates that took place long time ago and I've done about 36 Moderated public debates around three dozen moderate public debates with Roman Catholic apologists 13 the geriatrics 5 with Robertson Janice Patrick Madrid, etc, etc.

But that was a while back and for some reason, you know. A lot of people have contacted me are raising questions like yeah. But I covered that in my debate with some Janice or we've discussed that before, you know, we had we had the great Mr. X debacle with Bob St. Jed as you can go back and look at the blog on on some of that stuff and There's not familiar with it.

Oh, really you you debated Robertson Janice, and I guess it's a good example of you know. What have you done for me lately? It's not that this stuff isn't available. It is. And the issues haven't changed folks I mean The one thing that you can definitely fault Modern Roman Catholic apologists for is the days keep saying the same things over and over again.

They almost never in fact. That's one of the things that I will give some Jenna some props for is is he's about the only one who tries to come up with something new. The the rest of them that are just you know, you know fat and happy.

You know in in their enclaves. Just keep saying the same things over and over again. And at least Bob's and Janice does try to come up with some new things. And so you got to give him some some props on that level whether they are, you know.

The same things the Magisterium would say is that's that's where the Catholics have a problem with him. But you know at least it tries so I want this to be edifying. I'm gonna be we're gonna be looking at solo scriptura.

We're gonna be looking at tradition. We're gonna looking at the bodily assumption of Mary We're looking at early church history all the stuff that you need to deal with when you deal with the assertions that Roman Catholic apologists make so let's Get started having burned the first 15 minutes on background information.

Let's let's dive into it and.

Matt Slick’s Questions and Sungenis’s Background

Listen to the encounter. Our guest a dr. Sue Janice. Is that right? I'm Jenna Sun. Janice, you know, I apologize. Man, that's what I thought it was and then one of the guys wrote something different.

So I went that one. Yeah, I think it was your.

Okay, well my bed my name's easy to say, you know, it's slick. I'd rather have some Janice. Well when you're booked to skinny kid like I was going to a lot of different schools then yeah, you don't want my name.

But that's the way it goes. So thank you for coming on the show. I really appreciate it. And You are a Roman Catholic, right? Yes, and you are a hardcore Roman Catholic. And You like to defend the Christian faith or excuse me the Roman Catholic faith.

I'll say it's the Christian faith. Okay, and I don't have you read the stuff of my view on Roman Catholicism.

I don't want to say I you know, I've never heard of you Matt, but somebody. You're a guy that.

Now let me just pause right there. So there I Know that you can't always avoid this. All right, I Have so many times been on the receiving end of the I don't have a clue who you are stuff That that I'm real sensitive to it, you know, I mean I understand there are times I I do radio programs I've done national radio programs and people call in and Well good example the example I've given when I was on the radio program up in Salt Lake City and A BYU professor calls in and starts throwing out textual variants in in the Hebrew text.

Thankfully I had my critical Hebrew text with me at the time. You know, there's not much you can do about that. You just you just have to try to be as widely prepared as you can but when you have the opportunity actually to prepare.

It just amazes me when you know, it was it was similar to the radio program I listened to. I think it was on the infidel guy when Robert Price ran into Bob Maury and Neither one of them had a clue. So that means you haven't read anything.

You don't have any idea what their unique perspectives are nothing and so, you know, it's it's just an absolute. It's gonna lead to a disaster. For one one direction or the other it's it's not the best thing to have happen.

Obviously the best thing to have happen is when both sides are actually prepared For this specific position that the other person is gonna be presenting. Otherwise, you're spending all sorts of time Arguing about definition saying I didn't say that.

Yes, you did say that because because if someone hasn't listened to you before They're gonna have to read into what you say some type of content that may or may not be accurate and I have to deal with that all the time.

I try to avoid that with my opponents because I take the time to Study what my opponents believe try to listen to them if they've written anything or if they've you know. If I can get recordings and things like that, sometimes I can't you know, that's what I did not like about what happened In the arrangements of that sudden debate the second night in Detroit a few weeks ago.

You just bring in a Muslim I've never even heard of this guy never read a word He said have no idea what his background is and and 60 seconds for you supposed to start. Oh this guy's gonna gonna fill in what?

It's you know, it was it wasn't difficult to respond to the guy but the point is That could really be bad and I just think wisdom would say you try to avoid it.

But to get of this program and talk to me yesterday and led me to your website. So I looked at a couple things so I just have to say I looked at a couple YouTube videos. Mm-hmm of you and Catholicism, so I don't know too much about you, but I think I know enough to.

Know we know where you're coming from, right?

Basically, I don't consider Roman Catholicism to be Christian.

No offense either for a while because I was a Protestant for 18 years. Before I came back to the Catholic Church. So I understand why you feel that way, yeah, I definitely.

Just by the way, some Genesis testimony is in the first edition of surprised by truth and If I recall correctly, I think there is an article Responding to his claims in the old Roman Catholic section of the website if I recall correctly.

And we're going back in the 90s here. So It That this was the primary thing we were doing for a long time was dealing with with Roman Catholicism.

Definitely believe it's it's apostate. I don't mean to be offensive, but I don't leave us Christian. And I believe that Roman Catholics who believe official Roman Catholic theology are going to be lost and go to hell their judgment.

And you know, I I don't know if you how. Clearly you hold to official Roman Catholic theology. You know read with my laptop. So when it gets noisy here in a minute, you'll know why. You know official Roman Catholic theology says if you're outside the Catholic Church.

You're lost. So I don't know if you hold of that or not, but.

It's that's what the old councils are saying. Actually, it says from Benedict or from Boniface the eighth and Eugene the fourth. It says if you remain outside the Catholic Church, you cannot be saved.

It doesn't mean that if you're not a member full-fledged of the Catholic Church, you cannot be saved, right?

Yeah, I will definitely the rest of my life Absolutely remain outside the Roman Catholic Church, and I will also advocate that everybody leave the Roman Catholic Church and never go to it. That's my position.

So I guess I'm gonna be lost to go to hell, right?

Well, usually what I ask people to do is to hold their conclusions until after the debate is over. And maybe you might change your mind after we discuss these things. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's fine.

I like people different opinions on the show. I really appreciate that and We were supposed to talk tonight about the assumption of Mary and Maybe you could just tell people what that is and why you believe it.

The Bodily Assumption of Mary and the Appeal to Tradition

Let me get in now. Let me just stop for a moment. I My assumption is assumption my assumption that the subject of the assumption is because I am going to be debating Syngenis on the assumption in September.

I I don't know if that's what was behind the thinking of the arranging of that topic. I I Do not know but Very useful for me to to find out exactly how Bob's gonna approach this. Be. It really is impossible to defend historically you you just simply have to assert Rome's ultimate Dogmatic authority and attacks all scripture.

It's the only way to defend the assumptions. It's clearly not a part of the tradition of the church if tradition has anything to do with anything Anybody believe for the first 500 years, but we'll get into that in a few moments.

But I think that's probably where the subject comes from. But again at least give Dr. Syngenis props for this. He's the only person I know of on that side of the Tiber River That would even attempt to defend this dogma.

We can't get Roman Catholics To defend this dogma they they'll they'll be willing to talk about Marian dogmas as a whole. But they recognize that the assumption of Mary is built upon an entire complex of preceding concepts especially in the development of Marian dogma over the over the centuries and so you know to go to somebody's radio program and And defend that.

Okay, all right takes takes a takes a little bit of work there.

Well, what it is is that at the end of Mary's life to her body and soul Church believes that her body and soul were assumed into heaven. Let me just let me explain that by making a distinction between assumed and ascension because we believe that Jesus ascended into heaven as Acts chapter 1 teaches Mary was assumed Being that someone else whereas Jesus ascended by his own divine power.

I Assume that he makes that distinction.

Because of the repeated Accusation one that certainly I would make and will make That there is a purposeful Paralleling in the person of Mary of the unique offices miracles and and the special truths about who Jesus Christ is immaculate conception virgin birth Vile assumption ascension, etc, etc.

There's an entire chart you can put together where Rome has paralleled in Mary. What is actually unique to Jesus and all anybody has to do is pick up? Liguri's the glories of Mary and Read through it a little while to realize that for Christians.

You just take out the word Mary put in the name Jesus and it would be a book of praise Jesus. But this is actually to Mary so there is obviously Grave concern in that area Mary.

We believe this because the church teaches it one of our authorities along with scripture. We have no problem believing it because the scripture itself Talks about various the bodies of human beings were assumed into heaven like Elijah, for example.

There's no place in the Bible that rejects being assumed into heaven now.

Immediately start following the argumentation here for us. For something to be dogmatically true. Remember Rome has defined this as a dogma. You cannot be a faithful Roman Catholic and reject this now.

I'm not saying that aren't Millions of people who call themselves Roman Catholics who just chuckle at these things. But the official position of the church is this is a dogma. There's a difference between a dogma and a doctrine for example Mary as Co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix of Christ has been taught as a doctrine by Popes for over a hundred years.

But it's not a dogma. That is a dogma is Definitional to the faith you cannot deny this and remain in the faith. The bodily assumption of Mary was defined as a dogma within the life of people that we all know these days not within my life, but to not all that long before I was born and as such Cannot be questioned.

It is a to use to use the phraseology of Jerry Matta ticks and I think he was quite right about this the very same authority that tells you that Jesus rose from the dead tells you that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven as you have.

The exact same basis for believing the resurrection of Jesus you have for believing the assumption of Mary it's a part of the gospel itself and This is one of the great tragedies and one of the great heresies of Rome is that Rome has added to the gospel these these these myths.

It's amazing that Rome cannot tell you with certainty what the Bible teaches about predestination election. But it can tell with certainty that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven that this just demonstrates what happens When you abandon sola scriptura and you embrace an authority outside of that which they honest us outside of that which is God breathed.

It is it is truly amazing, but notice the argumentation. Well, there's nothing in the Bible against it. A dogma. It just even a concept that is not even going to be become well known for four or five hundred years down the road.

To say well, the Bible doesn't say anything against it and you know, you God certainly can assume people into heaven. Well Yeah, he can. But I'm reminded the words of Tertullian from long ago In his against Praxeus when he said but if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious Imaginations we met we may then make out God to have done anything.

We please on the ground that it is not impossible for him to do it. We must not however because he is able to do all things suppose that he has actually done what he has not done. But we must inquire whether he has really done it.

It will be your duty. However to adduce your proofs out of Scripture as plainly as we do. So there you have Some words that Roberts and Janice needs to listen to. Because in just a little while you're gonna hear Matt slick saying so where does the Bible do is what I don't need to show you that and we'll get into that but This this needs to be understood this kind of argumentation.

Well, it's fitting for God to have done this for the mother of God, etc, etc. That is such a completely different perspective as to where you derive religious truth. And then that which is held by the Christian who holds that which is the honest us.

So, you know, we have no problem in Accepting that as a doctrine. And it's not as if it just came out of thin air, you know in the 20th century 1950 when Pius XII declared it a doctrine of the church.

It's not as if he just woke up one morning and said oh, I think we ought to believe in the assumption of Mary. This was a doctrine that was talked about among the patristic errors.

I have to admit when you say the patristic errors the first time I heard that I'm like, nope.

Nope, we were right the first time around on this one and in the medieval ages. Prior to the year 1000 there were many instances where they were already talking about Mary being assumed into heaven now.

Notice what was just said.

Prior to the year 1000 that's not the patristic era. This is a dogma that Comes from non-christian sources. It is first found in Gnostic sources. When it is when it first comes to the attention even of the the institutional Roman Church is identified.

That the material out of which it comes is identified as heretical. You do not find early church fathers in the 2nd century in the 3rd century in the 4th century. Preaching on these things saying this is Christian belief in any way shape or form.

To say that this is a patristic belief Is to make a mockery out of the phrase itself. It just isn't and Roman Catholic sources admit this. Roman Catholic scholarship very much admits us.

Well, we'll look at that in just a moment, but it hadn't been and the groundswell of this continued throughout the Second millennium until it finally reached a peak where the Pope had to make a decision what he was going to do with this Common consensus of belief and he decided to make it a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

So that's why we believe it because our authority declared it to us from the tradition that has been passed down to it.

Now notice there is a claim that there is a tradition that has been passed down. From whence does this tradition come. This is where the challenge should have been made. Where is this tradition found?

Can you trace it to the Apostles? And of course you cannot and and I don't know of any Roman Catholic apologists who would even try to do so. It's it's just not possible. You can try to say well, you know, the records are incomplete or something like that.

But the reality is. Even when we start having extensive Bodies of literature from the early church. You do not find any of the early church leaders preaching on this subject. It's just it's just it's just not there.

It's not a part. Now remember when you talk about all sorts of other Dogmas and doctrines that Rome is to find the basis of tradition. They will go to these sources and yet these sources are silent at this point.

The making of the bodily assumption of Mary into a dogma is a demonstration that the Roman the modern Roman Catholic Church is not under the authority of either Scripture or tradition in any meaningful use that term.

Now, of course Rome's use the term tradition is. You know depends on which theologian you're talking to but any meaningful definition of that word would have to reflect What is found in the patristic period?

Up to and including Augustine and This is a dogma that simply isn't there. And we're gonna see that the the attempt to bring in Epiphanius and Ambrose and Augustine doesn't work and we'll. We'll see at a moment.

But this is a clear illustration That the modern Roman Catholic Church, it's not scripture plus tradition plus magisterium. It's just magisterium period end of discussion. This is one of the greatest examples of what I have called Sola Ecclesia the church alone not the church under the authority of Scripture not the church under the authority of tradition.

But Sola Ecclesia the church defines what scripture is and what scripture means. The church defines what tradition is what tradition means and therefore it's not a three-legged stool. It's a unicycle.

All right. One church Sola Ecclesia being demonstrated right here.

Okay, I'm just curious. What's the earliest attestation supposedly from the church fathers? That.

Talks about the Assumption of Mary. Well, we have Epiphanius in 377 discussing the issue.

No, let's actually read Epiphanius. This is this is why you have to challenge these statements because folks think about it. I'm not making this up. Rome has a long history of faking documents. The entire papacy developed out of the the utilization of faked documents the the donation of Constantine the Pseudo-isidore in decretals.

The modern Roman papacy could never have developed historically without the use of those fake documents. The amazing thing is now they admit those are fake documents. But the papacy is still there the foundation upon which it was built is gone been washed away by the sands of time but it's still there just hang out in midair and the the history of the utilization of especially fake patristic citations is long in the history of Roman Catholicism and in this situation as well.

Let's look at what Epiphanius actually said. But if something gets mistaken, let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death. They will not find whether she died or did not die. They will not find whether she was buried or was not buried.

Scripture is absolutely silent on the end of Mary for my own Part I do not dare to speak. But I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence. The fact is scripture has outstripped the human mind and left this matter uncertain.

Did she die? We do not know either the Holy Virgin died and was buried or she was killed or she remained alive. Since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires for her end. No one knows.

Now there is a huge difference between saying we don't know to the Church of 1950 saying we know and in fact, we know. So certainly we're gonna define it as a dogma and add to the gospel. How's that. How's that.

Got a challenge these things folks got a challenge. Show me the citations. Let's read it in context. Let's read what goes before and what comes after.

Mm-hmm. We have Ambrose and Augustine discussing the issue as well.

Ambrose and Augustine. Discussing the issue as well. What does that mean? What what what what does that what do you mean discussing the issue? I went and put it back in the other room. I Had that huge book by Fitzgerald on Augustine big thing.

I mean it would it would be a doorstop and I looked up what Fitzgerald says about Augustine and he says he's absolutely silent on Anything related to it silent. Think of all the sermons and how many times Augustine talks about this silent.

Never saw it as a dogma never didn't even doesn't even show any knowledge of such a concept none whatsoever remember Augustine specifically taught against the concept of the defined immaculate conception of Mary.

Oh, he he certainly had a high view of her but not when it came to the idea of original sin and The later concept and there were seven popes that taught against that concept. This isn't tradition. This is stuff directly opposed to what's actually found in the materials of church history.

Don't believe me. Well, let's listen to a juman a juniper carol has to say in his book Mariology in These conditions we shall not ask patristic thought as some theologians still do today under one form or another to transmit to us with respect.

To the assumption a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated the subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts. Patristic thought has not in this instance played the role of a sheer instrument of transmit and transmission.

So here you have an expert in the subject saying dr. St. Genesis is wrong, and he's a Roman Catholic. One has written books in the subject. The other one has not. But we've already heard well this this is tradition delivered to the church, but where's the evidence.

Where is the evidence. Remember when I debated Jerry Manitakes on this subject on Long Island? First the great debate series and I was going through Jerry. Can you show us in the seconds in the second?

So can you show us anybody in the third century. And Jerry's getting all flustered and frustrated and. Finally, he says you can't expect them all to have talked about this and Jerry's I said to Jerry Jerry.

I'll take one. You couldn't give me one. Because it's just it's just not what people believed. It's mythology. It's projected back. This is the greatest example of Roman Catholic anachronism. And the only reason you really believe it is because you've just turned yourself over completely to the Roman Magisterium.

And they say believe it and you say okay, I believe it. Where is this stuff found. Where do we first find the idea of the Bible Assumption Mary in two primary sources? Pseudo Milito, which is again a fake document.

Allegedly written by Milito Sardis. Milito flourished at the end of the second century. It was not written by Milito Sardis comes hundreds of years later. And they would use the names of preceding people to try to add something to their own writing and in what's called the trans.

It is literature. The trans is Beate Marie. Heavily influenced both by non-orthodox Gnostic sources. That's where most of the Marian dogmas come from folks. Check it out for yourself the majority of the nascent Marian dogmas.

Including perpetual virginity immaculate conception things like that come from Gnostic sources. They don't come from Scripture. This isn't a thing the Apostles ever taught or believed. And When we hear later on Robertson Janice quoting the text Thessalonians.

About the tradition which you received whether by word of mouth or by Scripture from us by letter from us. See, it's that that's that oral tradition. This is this is one place that he was not challenged and he must be challenged all through this.