Michael Voris, Diaa Mohamed, and Bart Ehrman

Out with today's topic. Here is James White.

Michael Voris, the Immaculate Conception, and Roman Catholic Authority Claims

You know, he just keeps getting me in trouble. His name is Sam Shamoon, the Assyrian Encyclopedia, and he likes to send me these emails, and frequently they're just, it's just a link. But sometimes there's a little nudge, a little wink-wink, like, hey, you know, you might want to respond to this guy.

And I don't think it's the first time that the Assyrian Encyclopedia has sent me a link from Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV .com, because I've looked at a few. I remember I played one just, I think, last week sometime.

My wife was listening to it in the kitchen, and I played a link, and there really wasn't enough there to bother with. But today, this afternoon, he sent me one over, and when I started listening to this thing, I just could not believe my ears, what I was hearing.

And so, we're going to sneak it into the rotation here. We're still going to get to Bart Ehrman, and we're still going to get to Diya Muhammad, but talk about an eclectic program today. We are also, we're going to talk about Roman Catholicism and the Immaculate Conception, and the myth of now inflation has created 40 ,000 denominations.

Boy, some people just do not do their homework at all. But hey, who is, I saw Tiquette had put a, James Swan had put an article up on the blog, I think last year or the year before, about another Catholic apologist who had said there are literally millions of Protestant denominations.

So, anyways, we're going to deal with that, and then we're going to deal with Islam, and we're going to deal with the textual criticism of the New Testament. Where else on what other webcast, or any other cast of any kind, can you get what you get here on The Dividing Line?

Nowhere at all, which is why I would refer you once again to the note that Rich posted to the blog while I was in St. Louis, and that is we need a server. And unlike certain Roman Catholic apologetics organizations that claim to need tens of thousands of dollars every month just simply to exist, we need, well, last I checked, 4 ,000, we've already gotten one of that, $4 ,000 to pay for the server, which will give us, actually over the long haul will cost us less than how we're doing right now, but it'll also give us, well, right now our server is a poor little PC sitting over in a corner at a server farm someplace, and they're changing all that, and we have to get up at the time.

So, if you like the program, notice that, because we need to adapt. Anyways, I started listening to this YouTube video by Michael, it's called The Vortex. Now, I'm just jealous because, I don't know, this guy's got so much hair it almost looks fake.

It almost looks, doesn't it? Did you look at it? Did that not look like a rug to you? It looks like a rug to me too. It does not look real. I'm sorry. It must be, but the way he combs it, it just, it does not look like it's supposed to be where it is.

And I, am I right?

Yeah, I mean, he needs to stop taking hair tips from Donald Trump.

That's right. He does look a little bit like he's doing the Trumpster thing there, and yet he's obviously much younger. But he does this Vortex thing, and he likes, you know, just, last week I listened to one where he was just ripping on Soluscriptor.

He didn't know what Soluscriptor was, but he was just really ripping on it. And what can I say? Oh, what? What's that? Seriously? We met the goal for the server? If that's what I'm reading there, then I need to announce that.

That we actually made the goal for the server. That was only like a week. You people are awesome. You're the best folks out there. That is so awesomely cool. If I can verify here, it's about 36, there's about a 30-second lag between when I say things in the program and when I see stuff pop up in the channel.

So if I can get, yeah, Hasim says, you can donate to the graphic designer. Yes, we need to triple the graphic designer's salary. In fact, we could, we could, we could increase it by a hundredfold, and we could still afford it.

I thought artists did their best work when they're starving.

Well, son, if you ever find yourself a wife, don't expect him to design anything for you right now after that one, because he ain't gonna be doing any, any artwork for you at all. Yes, it's true, doc.

Okay. It was less than 24 hours. Oh my goodness. Well, see, I haven't seen Rich for quite some time now. He's, he's been off doing important stuff elsewhere. So hey, scratch what I said. You know, we're, we're straight up front about that stuff.

Thank you very, very much for that. Anyhow, I'm never going to get through any of this if I don't get started. So I'm going to get started. I started listening to this thing, and it did not take long for me to realize that we had something here we needed to be looking at.

If we could develop a radio-free, you know, radio-free Geneva would actually work for Roman Catholicism too, because Geneva, Rome, stuff like that, and Geneva sent all these missionaries down into Italy that almost all of them died.

But if we had a theme, this would, this would really be a good thing to have a theme for, because, goodness. But, well, let's just start listening to, to Michael Voris, and we'll, we'll stop and start, because we won't get very long before we run into problems.

So let's,.

Let's listen in. Hello everyone, and welcome to The Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are trapped.

And exposed. I'm Michael Voris. Well, immediately, lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. Well, that's good. I, you know, it's a good thing to, to trap and expose lies and falsehoods. But given what we're going to hear on this, I, I really think that we would have a very different definition of the truth.

And by the way, we're always looking for Roman Catholics who are willing to debate. It's hard to find them anymore. Despite the fact someone sent me a link to a line, to a, a post on the ever-interesting, but always truth-challenged Catholic Answers Forums, where you can find some folks who just don't ever get out.

You know, folks who seemingly just don't look beyond the, the very narrow walls of the Catholic Answers world. Someone had posted something about, you know, we've still got this article on the website about how many of the leading Roman Catholic apologists will not debate, at least not debate me.

And someone had responded, oh, all those people have debated. He's just dishonest. He's just a liar. And it was like, oh, I'd love to get those folks. You know, like get Guardian to call back in. How many years has it been now since Guardian said he was going to call in and give us his list of all my errors?

About, about three years, something like that. Hey, Cranmer's in channel. Cranmer, I need that debate. Quick, man. I was about to send him an email. Now I'm using the, now I'm sending him personal emails.

Isn't that great? But I, I, I'm putting the last touches on the, I've got to get a syllabus in by Monday for my Golden Gate class. Cause I'm teaching apologetics starting the second week in January for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, where it was said I would never teach again, but I'm teaching there again.

And I want to use the video. I want to get the MP4 of the video and I want to put it in one. I just posted. That's one way to do it. I just don't want to necessarily do that. And so anyway, I need to get that information from him because I want to use the Abdullah Kunda debate.

Oh, he's not even listening. Good. Great. Wonderful. So I'm going to explain to him what I just said in channel and let him know I need to find out when I'm going to get the Abdullah Kunda video, because I really want to, um, really want to have the students watch that because I thought it was one of the best ones we had, uh, we had available.

Algo just posted the particular thread in channel. Why won't Catholic apologists debate James White? And, uh, uh, I'm giving my guy here a hard time. We'll give him a harder time. Give him a Brit, act all British around him.

That, that would be the way that would drive any Aussie crazy. All right, I'll give it to you. Just stop acting British. And, uh, that'll, that'll, that'll take care of that. All right. We need to get serious here.

Uh, let's get back to Michael Voris in the vortex and, uh, let's,.

Let's get to it here. When Catholics celebrate the feast of the immaculate conception, we have the esteemed privilege. Yes. Privilege of being caught up in the creative mind of God,.

The father in a desire he had from all eternity, except that it's a dogma that did not become a dogma until 1854 and was unknown, absolutely unknown in, uh, in the early church. Uh, in fact, there, there are lots of, lots of quotations you can provide about that.

I mean, I, I, I loved, you know, St. Bernard's argument against the concept, uh, how many people had argued against it and, and things like that. And I liked the comment of Ludwig Ott in fundamentals of Catholic dogma, page 200 and 201.

The doctrine of immaculate conception of Mary is not explicit revealed in scripture. Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the immaculate conception of Mary. So if this was in the mind of God, he took him quite some time to finally get it around to revealing it to men, which would actually make it a new revelation because it's neither found in scripture nor tradition.

So it's a, it's a revelation outside of the kin of the New Testament itself. And, uh, so, uh, just thought I'd add that to the, uh, rather interesting description that Mr. Boris provides of this, uh, feast of the immaculate conception.

Most Protestants have no desire to hear talk of the immaculate conception of our blessed mother.

Because... Well, except those of us who actually debate, uh, people, uh, as I have twice on this particular subject. So it's not a matter of our not wanting to talk about it. I, I don't mind talking about it.

It's a great illustration of where the Roman Catholic church has defined something de fide that has absolutely positively no foundation in either scripture or tradition. Now, the only thing that has less, if you can have, if you can have no, if you can have less than none, uh, is the bodily assumption.

Uh, but both of them now de fide dogmas of the Romanist system that have nothing to do with scripture or tradition, which demonstrates that Roman Catholicism, um, is not bound by any external authority outside of itself.

This is, these are both excellent examples of sola ecclesia, the church as the sole and final rule of faith for itself. It's not a three-legged stool or anything like that. It's not church and tradition, magisterium, and no, it's just a magisterium, period, end of discussion.

I've always said that's Rome's position and the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption of Mary, prove that that is in fact Rome's position. Because the brilliant truth of this doctrine.

Shakes some of their foundational principles with such a force that they come tumbling down.

Really? I, I, um, I've never met anybody, um, who upon seriously studying the history of the Immaculate Conception, seriously studying the documentation that demonstrates that seven popes have taught against it and that there are numerous early church fathers who talked about, uh, Mary's sin, directly contrary to what Mr. Voris is going to say here in a moment, um, and then looked at the, the political maneuvering, the very human aspects of the final definition itself that ever felt, felt anything shaken.

In fact, the only people I could think of that felt shaken in such a study were people who actually believed Rome was the infallible church. Um, I certainly have not found anything in that kind of material that in any way challenged me.

In fact, it just simply affirmed very, very deeply the, um, reality of Rome's false.

Authority claims. But practically every Protestant, which means Baptist, Lutheran. Okay, now listen.

Here. He's going to, he's going to list about six denominations. Then he's going to start mixing denominations. He's going to talk about evangelicals, which would cross over some of the others that he's talking about.

They're evangelical Lutherans, evangelical Baptist, so on and so forth. But then listen to the number folks, because remember, you can go back on the blog, search for 33 ,000 denominations. You will find lengthy, extensive blog articles with PDF images in them of original sources, demonstrating beyond all possible dispute that the argumentation being used by Roman Catholic apologists about 33 ,000 denominations, or now as you're going to hear even more than that, is absolutely positively a bogus misreading of a source that is without any defense.

Steve Ray tried to defend himself when I exposed him, and of course he just demonstrated he's a very dishonest man, that he has absolutely no interest or love for truth at all. He is a self-promoter from beginning to end.

That's, that's who Steve Ray is, and any Roman Catholic apologist who continues to baselessly use these grossly inflated numbers is just demonstrating that, hey, as long as the church, as long as the source of church, who cares if it's true or false?

I mean, they literally are following the path of the inquisitors, who as they turn the crank of the rack and hear the screams of their victims, think they're doing it because, well, Mother Church has told me to do it.

It's just, it's a sad, sad thing, but that's, that's, that's the reality of the situation. Let's click the right one here. ...Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian,.

Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Congregationalist, and the whole lot of 40 ,000 different Protestant.

Faiths would be shocked out of their minds... 40 ,000 different Protestant faiths. He said it. 40 ,000 Protestant faiths. Well, Mr. Boris, I'd like to know where you got that number. I know where the 33 ,000 number came from.

I know what the World Christian Encyclopedia actually says. And I know the World Christian Encyclopedia, in its collection of denominations, lists 8 ,973 denominations under Protestant. And that the only way you can get to even close to 33 ,000 is if you include the Independents, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gnostics, Bogomils, Swedenborginists, the Arab radio TV networks, 19 denominations worth, Japanese Oneness Pentecostals, 14 denominations worth, and add them all in.

And, and surely, surely the Japanese Oneness Pentecostals are the result of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Reformation. I'm sure that's exactly where they came from, right? And remember, it also includes over, what is it, 234 Roman Catholic denominations.

Do you accept that, Mr. Boris? Do you believe there's 234 Roman Catholic churches? Not just churches, but actual denominations, churches? That would be, that would be very interesting. And I wonder if Mr. Boris also...

Whoa, stop. I didn't give you permission to continue on. I've got two pointing devices here. I clicked the wrong one. So, let me, let me list some of the others you have to throw in here for Mr. Boris's numbers to work on.

British Israelites, eight denominations, Afro-Caribbean Zionists, only one of them, thankfully, but it had to be due to Sola Scriptura. Gay, lesbian, homosexual tradition. Oh, that's due to Sola Scriptura.

White-led, word of faith, prosperity, 17 denominations. Latin, right, Catholic. Oh, they're Protestants. They're thrown in there. Independent Jehovah's Witnesses. The No Church Movement. Ah, why not?

I love those. Old Catholic, 26 denominations lay at the foot of Sola Scriptura. Isolated radio churches. I, as I said in my article, I just report the facts. And single congregations. Oh, great. That's the one you just, when you have no place else to put them in, you throw them in there.

And this is all due to Sola Scriptura. I wonder if Mr. Boris would likewise believe what's in the source on the very next page. The very next page talks about persecutors and their victims from AD 33 to 2000.

And it talks about people who, it talks about Christians who have been killed. And it talks about their persecutors. And it says secular governments by far the most, 55 .597 million over 2000 years. Atheists, which overlap with the above, 31 .5 million.

Muslims are right up there at 9 .1 million. Ethno-religionist animists, 7 .5 million. But at number five, number five on the list, ladies and gentlemen, according to the same source, Roman Catholicism.

Yes, Roman Catholics have killed 4 .95 million Christians. Now, do you, do you accept that, Mr. Boris? Same source that you're inflating your numbers from. Same source. Do you accept that one, I wonder?

I don't get the feeling that he probably would. But you know, all that information's been on our website for quite some time. In fact, let's see, this article was posted, when did I post this one? This was August 27th, 2007.

It's been up there over four years. And so, I suppose if Mr. Boris had utilized the Oracle of All Knowledge, Google, that he would have, would have known about that. But for some reason, he didn't. So, so much for the 40 ,000 omniscience.

Now, we're going to hear the, your founders believed in the immaculate conception concept. But let's, before we allow him to embarrass himself with this statement, let's provide a context. What is the context of such a statement?

Well, let's think about it. Um, the time of the Reformation, Rome itself had not dogmatized this belief. It was a matter of private belief. You could or could not believe it. And we can document all sorts of big names who did not believe it.

There were numerous people who already argued against it in the medieval period. And so, it was a matter of piety. And so, it's easy to quote Luther and his soft spot for Mary and in his piety, believing in something like this.

But I can guarantee you something, folks. I can guarantee you something. If Rome had defined this as a de fide doctrine then and said, you must believe this or it's the, the fire for you, that would have changed everything.

But you see, at the time, there were Roman Catholics who agreed or disagreed. It was a matter of dispute and discussion. It was, it divided, you know, Dominicans and Franciscans and all the rest of the stuff that came along in that form a little bit later on.

But again, it is anachronistic as Roman Catholic apologists tend to be anachronistic rather often. It is anachronistic to reinsert into history the arguments that are going on now as if they would have been relevant at that time.

And so, when he says that all these people, all those 40 ,000 denominations would just be blown away if they knew what Luther and Zwingli said, um, sir, we do know. And those of us who actually take these things seriously have already looked at these things and are well, well aware of the fact.

But let's continue listening. Two founding fathers of their.

16th century revolt against the Catholic Church. Each agreed with revolt. It's revolting with the.

Doctrine of the immaculate conception. No, they agree with the concept that was not yet a doctrine or a dogma. See how different that is? Most people, they just hear that. I just love when people in some of the debates, they'll get up and, hey, did you know Luther said this?

And they don't seem to have any concept of what anachronism is. Reading into a, an ancient context, or in this case an older context, a dispute that simply wasn't happening yet. That shows they don't even understand the history of the development of their own dogma at that particular point in time.

Martin Luther said, quote, Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents. But the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood.

The Holy Spirit permitted the virgin to remain a true natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are.

And Ulrich Zwingli said, quote, I esteem immensely the mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.

Now, even there, just simply finding the term immaculate does not mean that a person used it, meant it the way that Roman Catholics mean it today. That's more anachronism. When they go looking for quotations in early church fathers, they frequently make that mistake as well.

And so that citation alone does not even begin to establish the position in regards to Zwingli. It's irrelevant one way or the other, but I've certainly seen that. In fact, in the debate that I did with Ferrara, Christopher Ferrara, when was that?

August of 2010, I think. Yeah, he dredged out a false citation, a pseudo citation from Augustine to try to substantiate his position. Remember, check citations when Roman Catholics make them, folks, because Rome has a long history of using false citations.

Long, long history.

Of using false citations. So how has it come to pass that the beliefs about Mary of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, or Revolt, which is more accurate, have not survived down to the present day?

After all, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of sacred scripture and was rooted in Christology and stretched back to.

The virtual roots of the ancient Christian faith. That is bogus and we'd be happy to debate Mr. Boris on that subject. Bogus! What scriptural witness? There is no scriptural witness to the Immaculate Conception of the Bodily Assumption of Mary, none, and neither was the belief of the early church, certainly the primitive church.

It's just, it's, the facts are just so overwhelming. I could, I could win that debate quoting nobody but Roman Catholics. I mean, I just, I just quoted Ott, didn't I? The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in scripture, neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

So if you want to start engaging in the most, uh, you know, creative ways of, well, you know, they used the term immaculate and, and maybe it meant this, and it, you know, if you want to start trying to shoehorn stuff in, go ahead.

It doesn't work well in debates. Really doesn't work well in debates. Doesn't work well during cross-examination. Um, not, not at all, but if, if that's where you want to go, then, then that's where you want to go.

But that's the best that.

They can do. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the sort of rabid passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment era, which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of all faith.

Yeah, that's why, uh,.

That's why the people who are the least likely, uh, to believe in Rome's imaginative extra revelations and dogmatic definitions about Mary that are so completely offensive to the real Mary and so completely derogatory, uh, to the, the truth about who Jesus Christ is and so detract from his, his glory.

Uh, the people who are the most likely to reject those are the people who believe in, well, the inspiration of scripture. That's not a supernatural thing. And the harmony of scripture and the sufficiency of scripture and, and the Trinity and the deity of Christ, the very people who are defending these things far more often than Rome ever does and far more effectively than Rome ever does.

Yeah, that's, that's why is because, uh, we're the children.

Of the Enlightenment that, that must, that must be it. Unfortunately, the Marian teachings and preachings of the reformers have been covered up by their most zealous followers. Oh yeah,.

Covered up. Yeah, that's, uh, we've no, never, ever talked about these things. No, nobody who teaches early church history or anything like that has ever discussed the viewpoints of Zwingli.

Or Luther. Nah, nah, there's nobody, nobody does that. With damaging theological and practical.

Consequences. Nowhere in Christian, now listen to this, listen to this, nowhere in Christian.

Literature prior to the arrival of the Protestants, 15 centuries, centuries after Jesus, do you ever, ever hear of our blessed mother being called a sinner. But whether stated implicitly or explicitly, that is exactly what current Protestant theology must say about the mother of God.

Did you catch that? Never, ever in 15 centuries, 15 centuries, really? Well, um, may I, may I note, um, well-known church historian J. N. D. Kelly, he's a pretty well-known guy, listed such notables as Irenaeus in his work against heresies, book three, section 16, paragraph seven, Tertullian on the incarnation of Christ, section seven, origin homilies in Luke 17.

They all taught that Mary committed acts of personal sin. Now he's, doesn't really have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Um, how did, how did they, how did J. N. D. Kelly come up with this? Others who made reference directly to personal acts of sin on Mary's part included John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil.

None of them had the slightest idea of the Immaculate Conception, didn't bother any of them to mention these things. Now, now here you have a guy, uh, who comes to us and he says Mary from acts of personal sin.

I mean, he's certainly far enough down the road that the exaltation of Mary has gone a long ways by the time you get to, you get to Augustine. And while he exempted Mary from acts of personal sin, he did not exempt her from the stain of original sin.

Now Pelagius the heretic exempted Mary and many others from the stain of original sin. But Augustine said that Mary died due to inherited sin, sermon two on Psalm 34. He spoke of Mary receiving the grace of regeneration.

He likewise taught that Christ alone was sinless. And it took about 1400 years for his influence to be overcome before ineffabilis deus, the papal statement defining the doctrine could see the light of day.

But his influence had to be overcome for that to happen. We see that Mr. Voris is simply completely and utterly in error in the statements that he has made on this subject so far.

If they are going to be true to their beliefs, this is what happens when the Holy Spirit does.

Not guide a religion. It falls into error. Now catch this. We're led by the Holy Spirit, but everything I've said so far has been a complete lie. It's easy for people to document where I have just, I have looked into your eyes through this video camera, and I have either demonstrated my abject ignorance or my complete dishonesty.

One of the two. Not sure which. I don't know the man, so let's just say he's never listened to the other side. It's just, let's just peddle the Roman Catholic side and let's not even listen to this. I don't know the problem is if he even read the Roman Catholic side, he'd have to realize his rosy perspective on this is not quite accurate, but the church is true, and the Holy Spirit leads us, and we're infallible.

It preaches wrong doctrine.

It leads people astray. And now for the whole crowd of Catholic false ecumenists out there who are willing to sweep some things under the rug or ignore them for the sake of getting along, ask yourself this question.

One day you're going to stand before the throne of Jesus Christ like we all are. Do you really want to defend your actions of allowing his mother to be called a sinner? Hail Mary, full of grace, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

God love you. I'm Michael Voris. Well, thank you, Mr. Voris. You may need to ask the question of all those early church fathers who recognize that, well, Mr. Voris, it's real simple. Book of Luke records Mary referring to God as her Savior.

You might say, oh, well, that's not a problem. She needed a Savior, but it was a preemptive application of the merits of Christ and all that stuff that you, I know, it came along long, long after the New Testament.

One simple question, Mr. Voris, and if you ever were to step out and debate these things in public, it's a question I'd ask you then. And I don't mind telling you what the question is now because, to be honest with you, there is no meaningful answer to this question.

But Mr. Voris, do you really think that's what Mary meant when she said that? Do you really think that Mary, in her Magnificat, that she actually was saying that when she called God her Savior, she recognized that she had been kept from the stain of original sin by the preemptive application of the merits of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, when she didn't even understand at that point in time what Jesus was going to have to do on the cross?

Are you seriously telling me that? That, sir, is the grossest example of eisegesis and twisting of scripture you could ever give. But it's all the Roman Catholic can do because your church forces you to, because it's a false teaching church.

And you have just given us excellent example of it. You have distorted history and distorted scripture. So there you go. Much more can be said about that. I would direct you to the web store at aomin .org if you would like to listen to the debate with Christopher Verara on that subject from just last year.

And by the way, I did look up something about Michael Voris. This year, 2011, inducted into knighthood of the Royal Order of St. Michael of the Wing, Royal House of Portugal. Now, there you go. Anybody who is a knight of the Royal Order of St. Michael of the Wing, St. Michael of the Wing, what on earth is that?

I have no idea, but it struck me and I thought I would share that. And it's right on the realcatholictv .com website. I didn't make that up. You can look it up yourself. St. Michael of the Wing. There's much that could be said about that, but I'm going to avoid saying anything more lest I get myself into a lot of trouble in the process.

Diya Muhammad on John 5:7, the Shema, and the Trinity

All right, let's get back into this. I'm going to switch the order here and go back to the Diya Muhammad material first, and then we'll wrap up. We aren't going to go for a jumbo. They had to because I threw that in, but we'll go back to the Diya Muhammad material first and then finish up with the Bart Ehrman stuff.

And I hopefully should finish my cross-ex of Ehrman and then we can get back into his opening statement in his debate with Dan Wallace. And I was talking with Alan Kirshner in Channel Today. He's one of our channel rats.

And we started outlining a book we'd love to do together because I'd love to do something with Alan. He has been trained in textual criticism in the schools back there in the upper and in the northeastern United States.

And he's gone to Harvard and places like that. And anyway, we started throwing out chapter titles for a book we would put together responding to Ehrman's position. And I think the title I came up was, at first it was B .E. Perfect, Bart Ehrman's Ridiculous Standards for the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.

I thought, no, no, B .E. Photocopied, Bart Ehrman's Ridiculous Standards for the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. That would be the way to go. But that would be really, really enjoyable to do. So, we'll get to that.

And if I don't start talking, we're never going to get to any of this. So, let's get back to the Diya Muhammad presentation against the deity of Christ. We've already seen that Mr. Muhammad seems to believe that 1 John 5, 7, which he thinks is John 5, 7, is the only verse on the Trinity in the Bible, and it's been taken out of the Bible.

And at some point in this debate, he's going to say it was taken out for like 17 years and put back in because the Bible thumber's got upset. Which, again, reveals, and it's important to understand this, and some of you might be going, you know, the dissonance between listening to an Ehrman, who at least is a real scholar, normally when he talks about a fact, he's got the facts right.

It's the application and interpretation that's wrong. Well, this seems like someone who just really hasn't done their homework. That's true. But the reason that we have to still be able to respond to this is because that's where most Muslims are.

The vast majority of Muslims have this false idea that the text of the Bible is this fluid thing that we can just sort of, I mean, the NIV translators can get together and change the Bible if they want to, if that's what they decide to do, as if they have the power and ability.

I mean, that's what everybody's thinking when they talk about Luther. Well, Luther won't take James, draw the can. You think Luther actually thought he had that capacity? I mean, seriously? That he could do that by himself?

Do you really think that that's what Luther thought of his own power and capacity? I mean, that's just absurd. It just makes no sense at all. But we have to be able to deal with folks who have the idea that the text of the Bible is.

Literally that fluid. Push it, they put it back in. Not because God said so, not because Jesus said so, because the people demanded it. I truly ask you, go and research and see if John, chapter 5, verse 7, was ever taken out of the Scripture.

Now here, that's where he said,.

It's been put back in. And maybe that was the thing. I'm going to, do forgive me just for a moment here. I'm going to back it up just a second, because I want to see if that's where the Bible thumpers came in.

Of the Scripture. We want to have both channels here. There we go.

The Bible tells us, in Deuteronomy 6 -4, a Jew went up to Moses and said...

Evidently, did not get far enough back there. Let's back it up a little bit more and see if.

This is where it is. It goes, the only place where it's mentioned, 5 -7, John 5 -7, was taken out of the Bible. Then when the Christians realized, and the Bible thumpers realized, and the priests realized they couldn't push it, they put it back in.

Not because God said so, not because Jesus.

Said so, because the people demanded it. Okay, there it was. I had just, evidently we had just stopped it on the last program, right after the Bible pushers. The Bible thumpers. The Bible thumpers got upset, and so they put it back in.

Again, he keeps saying, go research this. I just have to say to Diya Muhammad, yes sir, you need to go research this, because you aren't even anywhere close. Sir, on my side, when I hear people talking about the Quran, or Islam, from this level of ignorance, I point that out and say, don't do that.