Augustine, Origen, and Other Patristic Stuff

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now, it's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Blog, YouTube, and Posting Schedules

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line Tuesday morning already the 12th of February. My goodness didn't even have to put a leather jacket on to ride my motorcycle in this morning. Just put a windbreaker on and that was all I needed because it was already over 60 degrees.

Yeah, it's getting warm.

I didn't even have to put a jacket on to go into your office. I Know it's terrible.

It's terrible. I can't get it into the upper 50s in there anymore, man. It only lasted a few weeks to it's it. I Think I'd actually enjoy sitting there so I could see my breath, you know. Hey when you live in Phoenix, man.

Yeah, you take what you can get you you gotta you gotta get the heat off for a while or or you'll just boil anyway, I I Realize we have different Kinds of not only listeners to the buying line, but especially folks who hit the blog.

You've got online folks who are you know using RSS readers and you know. They want it. They want to see the videos as soon as they're posted. So they're hitting my youtube page and all the rest of stuff.

Those of you who see the YouTube page, but then see the blog realize I'm Not posting stuff in the blog nearly as fast as I'm posting stuff on the YouTube page. In fact, I think of as of last night. I have at least one video out to March 7th.

And that's like at least three a week and one of the reasons for that is there are other people who come to the blog. They don't have time to be watching a full-length video every day. Even if I had time to produce a full-length video every day and so.

And then and there's other people who do not hit it every day. And then when they do hit it They feel like they've got to play all this catch-up and they gotta choose which ones are gonna watch stuff like that.

So, you know for the for the online people who are really big into You know wanting to know exactly what's going on right now they can use the YouTube page link and and you see this stuff as soon as it comes up and and fine.

Just be aware of the fact that you might end up seeing that appear on the blog a month later. A couple of them I put up last night Yesterday actually will will be almost a month down the road before they appear and that's fine that's that's just how it works and so those who Do not follow the YouTube page you're not to be fully familiar with some of the interaction I've had or attempted to have with a Certain Catholic apologist who almost a year ago had posted a video Standing in front of a white wall with some cellophane stuff in front of the camera.

Really sure what that was all about but I had started posting Stuff on YouTube. I initially signed up to YouTube to post the video of our thief. That was the whole idea behind it was to post a video of our thief.

So people could see that's still up there by the way if anyone liked the very first one there if you want to take a look at the The man who's broken into our offices twice. There's there is y 'all keep an eye out for him Smile when you you know, he waves the camera and stuff anyway, and then I Started going, you know, I Could throw portions of debates up and things like that and all I was doing I wasn't producing New videos where I'm sitting there talking or I'm addressing thing.

I was just putting them up as part of the blog. The context would be provided by the blog and I really you know, I didn't do anything with my YouTube channel. They didn't know I had a YouTube channel until one of our channel rats by name of Lane told me that I did.

Then I started like that. Oh, well, I could make that a lot prettier. And so I you know did that and so I Had started to put portions of debates up to dress particular issues that I was talking about in the blog or whatever.

Well, he took exception that I wasn't posting the entire debate as if that was something I would be under some type of compulsion to do We make these debates available and and If you post the whole debate then, you know, that's sort of defeating the purpose a little bit as far as that goes but anyway, so He had thrown this stuff up and and in the process he was saying that I didn't want you to hear that I didn't want to hear these quotations from the lips of Robertson Jenison and I didn't want to do this and I didn't want to do that I didn't want you to hear these things and this is what I'm hiding from you and blah blah blah blah.

So I started to respond to that because it's a It's educational to understand the mindset of people people will call this program all the time. They go Hey, I'm gonna be meeting with a Jehovah's Witness or I'm gonna be meeting with a Mormon.

Give me some verses. It doesn't work. Sorry folks, you know I mean there might be some people who would actually respond to that and say well quote this this and this I'm sorry but I'm setting you up for a Crash and burn if I do something like that because Not only are not all Jehovah's Witnesses the same and not all Mormons the same and so on and so forth.

You have to learn to listen and figure out where somebody's coming from and stuff like that. But there's also getting to know the mindset of people. And a lot of folks are called a program to go they in essence expect that I can give them a magic bullet that's going to work with everybody and it's going to answer all the questions and The fact matter is there there isn't any such creature it just doesn't work that way and You have to know something about the mindset of people and there are some Roman Catholic apologists and I we may be looking at one and in this particular fellow that I've been responding to.

It doesn't matter what you say It doesn't matter how clear you are. It doesn't matter how fair you are. You can lay out all sorts of things like well look There's certain ways that you interpret ancient documents ancient writings, there's a thing called context and and there is a direct parallel in in my experience between this fellow whose name is William and the Muslims that we've talked to both have this set of glasses surgically attached to their faces and They cannot Outside of the supernatural work of the Spirit of God remove those glasses from their face when they look back in time they they absolutely insist upon inserting back into the ancient context their own beliefs and this drives people nuts when they're trying to talk to a Muslim and You know, you can see it even in folks like like Shabir Ali when I ask him, okay What can we know is inspired in New Testament what mechanism can we use well if it agrees the Quran it's inspired well.

You know and that makes sense to them given their starting presuppositions and to us we go. Wait a minute. You're How do you're supposed to debate this because you're starting at the wrong place. You're starting with your case already made.

You're not making your case. You're starting with the assumption that your case is already made. How do you deal with that? And the same thing happens here. I was just looking at One of Williams blah videos and There was some guy who left a nasty note to him and he needs to delete that one but a Fellow by name former agnostic three hours ago.

He he left this this message for for William it says I'm not sure what what happened by the reply. But I had also stated that all your quotes from the early church fathers pertain to the Catholic Church Remote and did not answer James White's response.

Why do I say is because Catholic is used by the early fathers in its context simply meant universal and not Roman Catholic as the term Is understood today and as James White has stated if you purchased read the early fathers you would see this well.

Of course, he takes offense saying that he hasn't done that. But here's the here's the key the key issue William responds and I replied that comment. The early church was Catholic. All caps and their beliefs and doctrines match up to the modern Catholic Church.

Not yours. Where's sola fide and sola scriptura in the early church enough said? There it is. You know, that's that's the mindset. The mindset is that's and you know where we heard that mindset. Did we not hear that mindset during the Tim Staples debate in 1996 in Fulton, California.

During the audience questions and there's somebody standing in line to ask question. They yell out the Eucharist and all the Catholics like You know their cheer. And you're like This is argumentation.

That's mob rule. That's not argumentation. That's that's just like we win because we win, you know, and this is this is supposed to be argumentation or something. Yeah, and they don't they don't get it.

They don't see that when they do stuff like that. The rest of us sit back and go. Wow. Okay, got a problem here. That's not a system. That's really Recommending itself to me as being intellectually fulfilling and overly truthful and Provide a real good ground for doing apologetics against Islam and stuff like that.

You know when you just do Eucharist or And I'm sorry, but it If you can't grasp the fact that Catholic back then means something different than it does today then We've we've got a major problem and. So in essence what what's going on?

All right. Go ahead. I see you. One might if you're in those shoes want to be very careful and think very carefully as to what kind of reaction you might get From Muslims if you did that any mob kind of well, yeah, you don't want to do that in that kind of context, but.

But those folks aren't those folks aren't doing debates, you know, I mean, in fact, have you ever heard of?

Catholic answers doing a debate with a Muslim. Oh, no, I haven't. I'm sitting here thinking I can't think of any one.

I can't I can't either. Have you been. Do you get Catholic answer stuff in your email? No, okay, I do and For a week now, I've been getting the same Catholic answers email the dangers of Mormonism how to protect your Catholic loved ones from Mormonism and I and I just I start sit back and I and I look at this stuff and I and I just go.

Man, I got like six copies of it. I get so sick of it after a while thankfully outlook eventually starts recognizing it as garbage and and checks it in the garbage, but. Yeah, they they love to do the ooh be careful this group ooh be careful that group thing, you know.

And it's always fundraising fundraising fundraising, you know, we're about to go off the air. Give us more money and so we can save your souls and stuff like that thing. Anyway. What was I saying? Oh, yeah, so.

That this mindset that will not even recognize That you're inserting stuff back here. I even tried to explain to William. Why do you think? Why do you think that people like John Henry Cardinal Newman came up with the development hypothesis?

There's a reason for this and Roman Catholic scholarship you go to Boston College someplace like that. They're gonna recognize it even the conservative ones the evolutionary nature of many of these beliefs but William stayed in his very first video remember I played it where he's hitting his hand and I'm so sick and dirty Church and then and then the whole I he says every single one of the early church fathers believe exactly what I believe and You're like wow.

They really really believe that they don't have any reason on the planet to believe that but they really really believe that and that's where They start and so whenever I disagree, I am guilty of misusing nearly fathers.

So any disagreement is automatic misrepresentation and I started seeing that early on. I remember back in 1990 when I included some historical material in answers to Catholic claims man the Roman Catholic response was just vicious and.

And it was and you could tell they were almost shocked and they were offended. They were offended that anyone would dare quote the early church to them. Because hey, they're ours. They're ours that that know that you can't do that.

They're ours. Now, of course, they had gotten away with it for a long time. You know, most people they quote or must be I'm sorry debate most people a debate, you know, ignore the early church. I remember the first time I ever wrote to Dave Hunt years and years and years and years ago is after.

It was right around 1991. I sent him the tapes of my debate with Jerry Maddox on the papacy and He wrote back and said, ah, I don't do that early church stuff. I stick with the Bible almost identical to what he said about the Reformers when we did the program later on and so.

They hadn't been challenged on that stuff. And so they got used to the idea that hey. You know, all we gotta do is quote the early church fathers. They're on our side and all is well and and You know that that's that's just how it works so they just really responded very negatively a little bit like Like Muslims respond to your utilization of the Quran your citation the Hadith.

Hey, that's our stuff. You leave it alone. You don't touch that. It doesn't matter whether you're being fair with it accurate with it. If you actually take the time to learn the original languages so you can deal with it, you know I mean, I I'm not sure but I don't remember encountering almost any Roman Catholic apologists who have the TLG CD-ROM in there in their library.

To be able to use it to be able to access these things and check out original languages and do translations and all that kind of stuff. I don't I don't remember much of that. But Anyway, it's it's it is fascinating to see the mindset now.

Augustine, Origen, and Patristic Interpretation of the Eucharist

In the video I put up last night I had to really rush right at the end for a couple reasons I was running out of time the video first of all, you only have 10 minutes of 59 seconds. Hit 11 minutes and it's all over with it will reject it.

But I was also running out of time because I had to get my stuff packed up and get to class and. So I didn't get a chance to really comment on what I posted. I posted a quotation from Augustin what had happened and and some folks find this interesting.

So let me just say what happened when William posted this this this particular video blog. He mentioned two citations that Roberts and Janice used in our in our debate on the mass in 19. Was that 99? I think I was 99.

I think mass is 99 and Justification was mm. Yeah, that that sounds about right because I think the papacy debate was 98. I'm sorry call. So anyway, and I had dealt with the with the assertions anyways during the course of the debate.

But I did not have the citations in front of me so as I explained on the video. You know it would be nice if I had nothing else to do to go back over every debate and look up every single reference that every single point I've ever had has ever used and and go through all those things, but When you're doing as many different things and and addressing as many different subjects as I do.

You just don't have that that luxury to do that. And so I had actually Gone back to the Tertullian Citation, I'm sorry the origin citation. I should tell you the origin citation and I had you do what you have to what you have to do here.

I Had here for those of you looking on the webcam Here's some Genesis book looked it up in there. And then of course, I found out he had taken it from where else but William Jurgens the the best quote citation source for Roman Catholics and I discovered that neither one of them provided almost any context whatsoever.

So I wanted the context so I did two things I ordered Here's origins homilies on Genesis and Exodus putting it up to the camera here for people from the fathers of the church set translated by Renard Heine and So I ordered that in but then I had a friend of mine because I wanted to do this a little bit quicker.

Once I had ordered the book in I had a friend of mine who's in seminary Go to his very nice seminary library track the same resource down and use the scanned a PDF function of their copier there to send me the relevant material even before I got the book so I Had to been able to examine the context before I made a comment about it.

I'm I don't get the feeling that that's normally what my opponents do, but that's that's what I did. So I had that material already and then a couple nights ago a fellow came into channel and started asking about the other citation, which is from Augustine and his commentary on the Psalter and It was talking about worshiping worshiping in the context as Suggests placed it of of the Eucharist and Specifically the let me see here.

Because he walked here in very flesh and gave that very flesh for us to eat for our salvation and no one eateth that flesh Unless he has first worshiped. We have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshiped and not only that we sin not in worshiping it but that we sin in not worshiping and So that was used in the context of see this is adoration of the Eucharist which demonstrates They believe in transubstantiation and they believe that the host have been changed in the body and blood of Christ in the same way that modern Roman Catholics do so.

The fella came in a channel started asking about. I was really busy with something else and it was sort of one of those Braindead things where I'm fixing something on the computer where you have to keep opening one file fix it close opening one file fix it close type of a thing so it was late at night and Sometimes I just get tired.

I just didn't want to do it. I didn't want to you know dig into it. But Oh Micah comes along thanks a lot Micah and Pulls up the citation. So now I'm stuck now. I got to dump everything I'm doing and I got to go now I got to go look at this because Micah has has has Destroyed my hiding place.

So anyway. So I started digging into it and we found it online and started looking at there. I got out the the commentary itself and you can go to my my if you want to see the whole thing. But the context is it's really odd it is Augustin is dealing with an issue that I don't think is an issue to begin with.

I'll be perfectly honest with you. I He's he's dealing with this this discussion About God's footstool and Fall down before his footstool for he is holy. What are we to fall down before his footstool?

The hoop a padi on and it says. Then he quotes another text from Isaiah. The heaven is my throne earth is my footstool. Does he then bid us worship the earth since in another passage it is said it is God's footstool.

How then shall we worship the earth when the scripture saith openly thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. Yet here it saith fall down before his footstool and explaining to us what his footstool is it says the earth is my footstool.

I'm sorry. But he missed it. I mean What does it mean to fall down before God's footstool? You're not worshiping the footstool. You're worshiping the person who is on the throne. I mean, that's obvious.

That's that's I'm sorry, but you know Augustin was on fallible and this this just isn't good exegesis. Whatsoever of the original meanings and tying things together and stuff like that. So the whole conversation in this in this commentary is brought about by something that really isn't overly relevant at that point but that's where you get into that's how he brings Christ into this particular text and how he took upon him earth from earth because flesh is from earth and he received flesh from the flesh of Mary and.

That's then the quote because he walked here in very flesh and gave the very flesh to us to eat for our salvation. And no one eateth that flesh unless he hath first worshipped. It's the worshipping of the footstool, which is the worshipping of the flesh of Jesus and none of this by the way is specifically about Eucharistic theology or anything else, but it's being read into it.

But this is the part that wasn't included by Robertson Jenison his citation. So on and so forth because after it says The we sin and not worship me. It says but doth the flesh give life our Lord himself when he was speaking in praise the same earth said it is a spirit That quickens the flesh prophets nothing.

But when our Lord praised that he was speaking of his own flesh and he had said except a man eat my flesh He shall have no life in him. Some disciples of his about 70 were offended and said This is a hard saying who can hear it and they went back and walked no more with him.

It seemed unto them hard that he said except you eat the flesh the son of man and have you have no life in you. They received it foolishly the thought of it carnally and Imagined the Lord would cut off parts from his body and give unto them man read some medieval Eucharistic stuff and that's exactly what they take they think too and Give it unto them.

They said this is a hard saying. It was they who were hard not the saying for unless they had been hard and not meek They would have said unto themselves he saith not this without reason. But there must be some latent mystery herein.

They would have remained with him softened not hard and would have learned that from him which they who remained when the disciples departed learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with him on their departure these remaining followers Suggested to him as if in grief of the death of the former that they were offended by his words and turned back.

But he instructed them and saith in him it is the spirit that quickeneth. But the flesh profiteth nothing. The words I have spoken to you their spirit and their life. If you ever try quoting those words to a Roman Catholic about John 6 you get your head hands you on a platter.

But Augustine was doing it understand spiritually what I have said. You're not to eat this body which ye see. Nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. Is That not the exact assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that it is the very body soul blood and divinity of Jesus Christ but Augustine says Ye are not to eat this body which ye see nor to drink that blood which even which they who will crucify me shall pour forth.

I have commended unto you a certain mystery. Spiritually understood it will quicken although. It is needful that this be visibly celebrated yet. It must be spiritually understood and so actually read the context and It doesn't say anything supportive of the utilization that St. Genes was using.

So I Didn't what I didn't get to do last night, and I'll put it into a video today. But I wanted to read this. What I didn't get to do last night was to then quote a Roman Catholic source in support of my own reading of the text since William likes to dismiss whatever I have to say.

The Catholic Encyclopedia Available online. Speaking of the development of Eucharistic theology over time said Speaking of August and the variety of extreme views just mentioned requires an attempt be made at a reasonable and unbiased explanation whose verification is to be sought for and found in the acknowledged fact that a gradual process of Development took place in the mind of st. Augustine.

Now remember what William said every single one of the early writers believe what I believe. Here is a Roman Catholic scholarly source saying well not quite. No one will deny that certain expressions occur in Augustine as Forcibly realistic as those of Tertullian and Cyprian of his intimate literary friends Ambrose up to Aptatus of Malavey Hillary and chrysostom.

On the other hand it is beyond question that owing to the Determining influence of origin and the platonic philosophy Which as is well known attached but slight value to visible matter and the sensible phenomena of the world Augustine did not refer what was properly real in the Blessed Sacrament to the flesh of Christ but transferred it to the quickening principle the spirit ie to the effects produced by a worthy communion a logical consequence of this was that he allowed to Corro the the the flesh of Christ as the vehicle and antitype of rest which is the real In the Blessed Sacrament member this is a Roman Catholic source not indeed a mere symbolical worth but at best a transitory intermediary and subordinate worth and placed the flesh and blood of Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine in Two decided in opposition to his natural historical body.

Since Augustine was a strenuous defender of personal cooperation effort in the work of salvation and an enemy to mere mechanical activity and superstitious Routine he omitted insisting upon a lively faith in the real personality of Jesus in the Eucharist and called attention to the spiritual Efficiency of the flesh of Christ instead notice even they have to go well well.

Okay. Didn't quite you know say the way we'd like to say it and in reality what they don't mention here is The emphasis that Augustine himself made on the fact that the physical body of Jesus Christ is Located in heaven not on earth and that the church to use his own words is deprived of the physical presence of Jesus.

Now when I read one of my first Roman Catholic books introducing me to Roman Catholicism many many years ago One of the big things that they pointed out was You get to visit with God. When you come to the church there in the tabernacle God is physically present with us in the physical body of Jesus.

Well, that's not exactly what Augustine had to say. He defended the reality of the physical resurrection of Christ by demonstrating that his body was in heaven not upon earth and so It's just a matter of allowing everything to be quoted in context and looking at these things.

That that is helpful, but I haven't gotten to the origin quote yet, and we've got at least two. Well, we had to I guess now we have one. We've got Lawrence on hold so we'll need to get the Lawrence before we wrap things up.

But we're gonna need to take a break, and then we'll be right back.

Hello, everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered Self-help program the need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.

I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior. We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet. White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town.

Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org and welcome back to the dividing line.

Origen, Context, and Anachronistic Readings of the Fathers

Let me jump right on this other citation real quick then we'll get to our phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one as soon as. You know, I started looking for this citation.

It was rather simple you pick up Not by bread alone the biblical and historical evidence for the Eucharistic sacrifice by Roberts and Jennison. Just go to origin and this on page 283 and we have this citation and again given Williams standards J &D Kelly's side in this book.

So I don't know that we should even use it because that's just ridiculous to cite J &D Kelly. But I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries.

So, you know how when you have received the body of the Lord you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall. Unless anything of the consecrated gift perish you account yourselves guilty and rightly do you so believe?

If any of it be lost through negligence and That's the only that's all it said. And then you have a footnote 378 homilies and excellent Exodus patologia grecki 1313 3 and then JR volume 1 490 will JR is actually William Jurgens Volume 1 page 490 so you go over to William Jurgens and you look.

Actually, it doesn't actually it's not the same page at all. But 490 actually is just the reference. It's a page 490. It's the reference number 490 it's on page 205 if you want to look at that and You're given the same citation.

And But Only one sentence longer is provided within Jurgens here, but if you observe such caution and keeping his body improperly. So how is it you think neglecting the Word of God a lesser crime than neglecting his body?

I'm not sure why some Janice didn't quote that part, but anyways the problem with Jurgens of course is It's quote book. There's there's no context many times the citations are very short, and that's why I needed to go looking for it and when when I did I Looked all through The commentary on Exodus, and that's as I said I I I tracked down the the information regards to What's origin had to say and so I began reading through the whole the whole section the whole chapter and In essence it is a discussion.

It's it's a it is a homily it is it is truly a discussion of the gold of the tabernacle and this one section just pops into it and as soon as it's over you go back to a discussion of of the tabernacle and It's about how origin wishes to be.

You know to be the gold of the tabernacle to be a proper Christian. And as some of you may recall if you listen to the debate or you listen to the citation Provided because it was this was during the cross-examination period as the section of William played I specifically asked in genesis I said so origin is actually addressing the nature of the Eucharist and instead of answering that.

And I don't know if he's ever looked up the context. I don't know if he tracked down the work. I don't know but He He didn't answer the question. Instead he said well just listen to the words. Well that doesn't answer the question I Was asking is the specific text about the subject of the Eucharist or are you?

Assuming certain things here and reading it into the context of origin. Now unlike the Augustine quote the context does not either confirm nor deny Either one of the interpretations of the text the context says nothing.

It doesn't provide us any Useful information as to what is meant By origin at this point you have to determine that from creating an entire theology of origins Concept of the Eucharist and of course the Roman Catholic is going to go well.

One particle is not to fall. That's just like what you have in the 12th and 13th centuries and there's all this concern about when when a part of the of the consecrated host would fall and or if you were to spill the wine, you know, the priest is to lick it up and What would happen if a mouse came along and ate a part of the consecrated host and and you know?

All this kind of discussion is going on in 1100 1200 1300s 1400s all that kind of stuff. That's what's going on in in the context of origin. Well, the problem is you just you can't substantiate that from origin that would have to that would.

Origin was a Platonist. Did we not just read a Roman Catholic source blaming origin and Platonism for Augustine's weaknesses at this point? If if that were the case and if you're reading into origins words this one little particle that physicality of transubstantiation.

How do you get that for a Platonist who is downplaying the reality of physical things? That requires the Aristotelian concept of accidents and presence and Origin is not Aristotelian in his in his philosophy.

So the whole background that makes transubstantiation understandable isn't there. So why do you read it into it an anachronism. An anachronism just just just asserting that it's there basically. But the fact the matter is the context doesn't doesn't give us any information one way or the other as to how we should evaluate that particular citation.

So that's one of the drawbacks of Debates is that in the middle of a cross-examination somebody can throw something out there and technically technically We don't enforce this in our disease debates, but technically, you're not really supposed to do that during cross-examination, but That's just how things work and I'm certain not objecting to that.

But it's next to it. It's pretty much next to impossible to evaluate the context of every single citation. It's thrown out. That's why people have to read they have to listen. They have to study they have to you know, follow up and things like that.

So Anyway, that's how you track down citations you make sure you've got the resources there. I remember back in seminary my church history professor mentioning that the vast majority of origins material had yet to be translated and I can feel very I feel very badly for anyone who gets assigned as a part of their master's work something like that to translate, you know something from origin the guys followed around by scribes who basically jot down everything he's saying and and I personally Feel really really badly if I had to try to establish any of my faith on the basis of origin origin had some really major difficulties as far as his theology went, but Hey, if that's where you want to go, that's that's where you can go.