Doctrinal Certainty

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 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday afternoon a little bit of a different time slot for us today but nothing too much out of the ordinary 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 a pretty warm afternoon here in Phoenix but still nice and dry to be certain and That just sort of means the summer is upon us here in Phoenix and all over the place people traveling and It's going to be a long warm one here in in Arizona to be sure

Had the opportunity of being on iron sharpens iron the past two days To address the subject of Mormonism didn't get nearly as much as I wanted to discuss done

But at least had the opportunity of once again Pointing out that if if Mormons are evangelicals then

Muhammad was an evangelical Just to get that message through to folks it might cause them to somebody to stop long enough and go what?

What what what do you mean? We know that Muhammad wasn't evangelical therefore Yes, but sadly we can't get too many people in In our culture to be thinking about that and to be speaking the truth about Mormonism interestingly enough unless Mr..

Pierce has not been forwarding them through to me. I haven't been getting any nasty grams from the

Mormons of course right now You're your computer is is croaked but My hard drive

I know your hard drive crashed, and that was your critical backups, but right now

No, we're not redirecting emails in fact. We're not retrieving in this just yeah right now

You can day after tomorrow. You can send all the emails you want to dust right now. We wouldn't see him so I Mean I get mine mine works, and of course

I have these USB drives sitting on top both of my boxes that do nightly backups

Yeah But if your hard drive crashed and you didn't have one To put in there to replace it to restore all those backups to I know but I just make sure

I do Regular backups yeah, I'll be getting one of those ah so we don't have regular back

Oh, no, I do data backups to the file server Every time I exit my major critical mission, but we don't have but as far as I mean

You know how big my drives are so Okay, I've got 500 gig

USB is sitting on mine. Just to make sure You know they don't cost a whole compared compared remember our 60

Meg We got and we thought we will never fill this thing. I got this here is 300

Meg tape drive backup It's a tape drive. It'll take everything we can throw out it man, and it only takes four hours do the backup to yeah

We just said it all night long. You know that's right. Nobody does anything at night anyways anyways

Yes, indeed Hard drive death is a is a bad thing

No toys about it, but anyway it's seven seven seven five three three four one had the opportunity like I said being on iron sharpens iron talking about Mormonism and Setting the record straight and as I was saying

I I normally when I address Mormonism I get these nasty grams out of BYU and the last time

I actually said to one of the guys up there hey, why don't you you know like get a life and You know

I don't I'm not interested in your nasty grams You're not telling me anything.

I don't know and you know try growing up a little bit, but but still haven't

Haven't gotten any nasty grams on Mormonism recently so any anyway today on the program getting back to Shabbir Ali and Mike Laikona on the resurrection, but also

Noticing that the phone lines are picking up pretty good here at the moment And so we'll be getting to our phone calls as well on Yeah, the program yeah every time

I see more man is a more man Ism I I pretty much know that we're dealing with someone who hasn't a clue

What in the world they're talking about it is not more man. It's more men mor mon and So just just keep up with that anyways

Those of you who were listening. I don't know how long ago now. It was quite some time ago last time We did a regularly scheduled dividing line

We well last week we actually got back to it finally after I had been sick But we just took phone calls and only two phone calls during the whole time we were listening to the debate on resurrection between Shabbir Ali and Mike Laikona the

Opening presentation from Shabbir Ali giving us a good idea I think of some of the things that we can expect to hear coming up in October and He is now getting toward the end of his presentation, which will then allow for Discussion between the two gentlemen.

It was not the kind of debate format that certainly I would prefer but still there was some

Give -and -take back and forth. We'll go ahead and pick up with that and that Conclusion does not necessitate finding his tomb empty and knowing that he physically bodily resurrected from the dead

It is just a faith expression of the closeness that Jesus had with God and the conviction of his disciples that God did not leave

Jesus alone to suffer in this Horrible way, I think I'd have to take issue with that because when we go back to the earliest tradition

Like for example the creeds there's several of them peppered throughout the New Testament But let's just you know, we talked about first Corinthians 15 that he died and that he was raised and that he appeared in Romans chapter 1 verses 3 and 4 and the majority of scholars acknowledge that we have a

Natural early formula or oral tradition there. It says that You know, he was declared the

Son of God with power by the Spirit of holiness through his resurrection From the dead so in the various early traditions, in fact that would predate

Paul that predates everything those those references There are

I counted three creeds Themselves within the New Testament that would predate

Paul and go back to within Just a few years In fact James DG Dunn says that the

Creed in 1st Corinthians 15 dates to within months of the crucifixion So we have very early now just in case it's been a little while since we listen to that we're talking

Right there. Anyways about 1st Corinthians chapter 15 1 through 4 or 5 or so where you have the early confession of faith the early summary of the gospel and what he's saying

Is it done takes that back to within a very short period of time after the crucifixion itself

There's no question. That's a very very very early Elements, but of course when you're dealing with Shabir Ali Shabir Ali automatically dismisses almost anything

Pauline anyway as being basically dishonest Again the the

Muslim writers they get the the pass They're automatically honest and everything they say but the

Apostle Paul is basically dishonest in everything He says and of course the standard is what as long as what

Paul says is in accord with the Quran Then it's fine. And if what the Apostle Paul says is not in accord with Quran, then he's he's being dishonest

It was back to the disciples Paul himself mentions Resurrection or rise from the dead on 30 occasions

So we have a total of 33 references in the New Testament Very early predating the

Gospels and a number of those predating even Paul that talks about Jesus being dead and raised or Resurrection now when he says predating the

Gospels, of course He's talking about the specific compilation and writing of the

Gospels and utilizing a particular Perspective as to what the time frame in which this took place was

Generally accepting Markin priority at that point and so on so forth

So that's that his point is that Paul's before that and that's what he's getting at here is that he's trying to do the end around around Shabir Ali's attack upon the the propriety and the accuracy of the

Gospels The problem of that of course is that they're all relying on the same sources that is when you really boil it down to it, where did all this stuff come from and From the

Islamic perspective again looking backwards and acronistically through the lens of the

Quran As long as it agrees to the Quran that it's then it's correct And if it doesn't then it's not and you have to be able to challenge

I think from the very start the application of that double standard and of course You know as I mentioned the concept of resurrection the body that was buried is the same body

That's raised and was transformed into an immortal body and the testimony of the disciples is that's the body that appeared to them

Well, I think you you have to be aware that the creeds that you're referring to Have been identified by scholars foaming the

New Testament looking at the writings of Paul They look at Romans as you've mentioned a look at 1st Corinthians You didn't mention

Philippians, but it's there in the back of your mind as another one of the correctness that is

That scholars have identified us now. I'm going to stop there and just mention you're not going to run into a lot of Muslims Who are going to speak like a

Shabir Ali just spoke in fact You're not going to run into a lot of evangelicals or whatever you call them today

Who would even be familiar with the term Karima? Who would be familiar with that type of terminology where to find them notice?

He's smooth Romans 1st Corinthians He knows Philippians That's pretty unusual and that's what of course has been his his advantage for a long period of time in the debates that he's done early statements of faith, but notice that Paul does not say where he got these from and Paul in in adding his own now actually

Paul does say where he got these from as I believe like hone is going to point out he specifically says that he he spoke with with Peter and the others and He's going to say that he got his gospel directly by revelation, but that he

Engaged in history sigh he he engaged in direct conversation with Peter and the others and Certainly would have learned much of the details of Jesus's life including crucifixion burial resurrection in those encounters with the other

Apostles Self adding himself to the list of people to whom Jesus Appeared is adding to that list a person to whom

Jesus appeared somehow Spiritually because in in the Acts of the Apostles where the Appearance the

Paul is described it is not a physical bodily appearance But it is a blind flashing light from out of heaven so once Paul has added that I think your case becomes weak here and the nose ways basically trying to say is is if Paul's vision of Jesus is if he's a witness of the resurrection

Then what that means is all of the visions of Jesus were just that they were just ecstatic visions or something like that now

The error here obviously is first of all it does not follow That because he adds himself to the witnesses the resurrection that means that every single witness

Viewed Jesus in the same way especially when they themselves say otherwise that's an illogical argument.

It's a vacuous argument It's a false argument needs to needs to be demonstrated as such Further the language that is used by all of the

Apostles Especially and again in the tomb book Both dr. Renahan and I emphasize this in the resurrection debates and the resurrection debate with Crossan and Borg that is not what the terms themselves refer to Anastasis is not something that is that is consistent with some

Ecstatic revelation that is results in a non bodily view of the resurrection what it means to rise in the dead a gyro

Anastasis these are terms that have specific meanings and instead of going to the text and driving the meanings notice that in essence once again

Mr. Ali is is doing the the end around in light of the necessity of demonstrating the truthfulness of the

Quran or at least his Understanding of the Quran in light of surah 4157 and his interpretation of that which

I think is questionable but And and and not looking at what the text actually says and creating this this idea that well

You know Paul's Paul's arguments weakened Because he adds himself to the eyewitnesses as if what that means is they all had the same kind of eyewitness experience

Which the text itself does not substantial it becomes more like the case of those who say that the disciples of Jesus must have seen an appearance of Jesus and Muslims should be willing to grant that God in order to solace the companions of Jesus allowed them to see a spiritual vision of Jesus That would persuade them that Jesus is alive with God so that they can go forward and preach

The Christian faith despite the fact that Jesus died this horrible death which now that's exactly what

Jehovah's Witnesses argue That the Jesus manifests these bodies to demonstrate that he has risen from the dead well

But that means he didn't rise from the dead. That's not what the term itself means and so where do the

Apostles say that this was something that God did to convince them that that Jesus was with God and Therefore I got to keep this in mind for the

Muslim if Jesus dies upon a cross then Jesus dies as a criminal They have the exact same stumbling block that the

Jews had And that the Romans had back in the first second third centuries regards the nature of crucifixion a prophet is not going to be allowed to die this way

They stumble at the very same Stumbling stone that the Apostle himself has to discuss in 1st

Corinthians chapters 1 and 2 it is Fascinating to see that but mark him off in the eyes of people as a condemned criminal a blasphemer and a false

Messiah So none of the evidence you have cited actually proves that Jesus physically bodily

Rose from the dead Okay, I appreciate you saying that actually,

I don't think that what Paul saw on the road to Damascus was a bodily appear are a spiritual

Vision or appearance like you're saying, but I'm glad you grant acts because if you want to do that Then we'll go to acts 13 where Paul is preaching as well.

And there he very Very distinctly and precisely says bodily resurrection

He contrasts King David with Jesus and he says David died was buried his body decayed

Jesus died was buried and his body also or but his body did not decay rather God raised it up and of that we are

All eyewitnesses So in doing so he's he's certainly contrasting what happened to David with Jesus and saying

Jesus body did not decay He raised it up and were eyewitnesses to this Now if you mentioned Paul we have to also say even if we do take that appearance in Acts chapters 9 22 and 26

Where he sees him on the road to? Damascus and it's the bright light This is a post ascension appearance so that could certainly account by the difference it's the disciples saw him right after he had been raised from the dead, but policy and after he ascended to heaven and Paul elsewhere in his own writings is very clear about bodily resurrection

For example in Romans 8 11 He says the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies so certainly referring to bodily resurrection there and then in you and quite true for all that so far and and it and Trying to argue that any of the

Apostles do not have in mind The bodily resurrection of Christ just impossible if if if if what if you allow the

New Testament to speak for itself But that's the problem no Muslim apologist is going to do that No Muslim apologist is going to approach the text of the

New Testament in such a way as to allow it to speak in a coherent fashion and Certainly they have all the people in the world they could ever wish to quote

Amongst quote -unquote Christians today remember that would from the world's perspective would include people like John Shelby Sponge To to say oh see even

Christians admit that there's all sorts of you know variations and different viewpoints and Blah blah blah blah blah

Colossians 2 9 where it says in Christ all the fullness of deity Dwells in bodily form and he's using the present tense and of course this is after post ascension

So Paul's view is still that Jesus is in a body I mean, there's numerous references like this

So I I would just have to disagree with you that he's referring to a vision or spirit here

And then in terms of where he got the information from in Galatians chapter 1 verse 18 and 19

He says that three years after his conversion, which would have been about five years after the crucifixion

He goes up to Jerusalem to meet with the disciples and he meets with Peter He says I met with Peter and the

Greek word used there is hyster a side from which we get the English word history and The word would mean that he went up and he did this historical

Investigation he was asking for history of Jesus from Peter and many scholars believe that this is at the point

When Paul received this Creed in 1st Corinthians 15 and all this because he was asking a history of Jesus And that's where he would have received the information from Quite true that that term is important in establishing that kind of historical chain of custody shall we say sort of a

CSI type thing there but in history and No, no, no to no two ways about it

But I don't really think that's going to be really allowed to have its weight Because it can't from the

Islamic perspective because Paul has to be you have to hang the sign on Paul that says

Here's the big baddie, even though it seems clear to me That's the the

Book of Book of Mormon see I was talking about Mormonism earlier that are the Quran And they're both about the same size and anyway the the

Quran Does not envision the idea that the original followers of Jesus are vanquished

But instead Allah makes them victorious That issue aside the modern perspective is no they were vanquished by Paul even the the

Gospels themselves are in essence Pauline productions They come from a church where Paul has somehow managed to vanquish all the original disciples

And he's made up this new Jesus, and that really is what drives Should be all these interpretation

Well, I think you've said it yourself Mike that there is an assumption there that Paul got this from Peter But Paul doesn't actually say that and we have to assume that Paul got it from there

Moreover where Paul speaks about body the resurrection elsewhere that does not know I mean point something out

This is this is something. It's very very calm. It's very difficult to deal with in a debate format because you have very limited time

That was not a response to what Mike said Mike brought out a positive fact in regards the meaning of history sign

He brought out where it is used he gave the citation he gave the text the only meaningful way to respond to that is to either demonstrate that that was a

Improper understanding of the term that there's another better way of understanding the term or to attack the validity of the source to simply to simply do what what

Shabir just did is Not to give an answer in fact let me let me roll it back here Just a second and and listen again to this kind of response because this is this happens all the time in Debate when you don't really have a response.

This is how you respond to it, and what's worse This is almost all you ever get in political debate

I mean for the next until until the end of 2000 till November of 2008

This is all you'll ever hear and when you're when you're when you like me And you listen to statements

And it's just automatic to analyze it for in a debate context to analyze it for coherence consistency for being

Really responsive to the questions it is maddening To have to listen to these these people in in politics because it's just Don't know don't know what to what to say about it's it's it's horrible, but listen listen again to what he says see the information from Well, I think you've said it yourself

Mike that there is an assumption there that Paul got this from Peter But Paul doesn't actually say that and we have to assume that Paul got it from there

We have to assume it wait wait a minute. He's made a positive argument. What does history say

I mean what what does it? What does Paul's own are you saying that Paul's own statement where he does talk about going to Peter?

And he does talk about this this inquiry that goes on Deal with that if you don't deal with that then the point is taken

And but for many people the fact that he just makes this kind of statement. Well. He doesn't say well.

Yes, he did For many people just the fact that he addressed it and he addressed it so quickly is more than enough well there's actual substance to the response or not that's the issue and You know

It's frustrating, but I have to trust That my audience is going to listen carefully enough to catch that kind of thing and they might not the first run

I mean when you just watch a debate for the first time you're there live man

There's just so much of it that it's very very difficult to fit into you know That's why Bill Shishko is right right you know do a flowchart

But write down the points the only way to really get the most out of debate is to really listen to what's being said it

Takes some work most people just sort of sit back, and they they watch a debate the way they watch a sitcom

Well a sitcom is specifically designed not to overload your senses. There's there's one line

They're trying to get you to follow So you can laugh at the right times and feel good at the end and buy the products their sponsors

That's the only reason they're there this isn't a debate It's not meant to be a debate, and you don't have to work at it but Sadly you know in in the educational system that we have in this country in most countries today the idea of working extending your your your period of concentration and interest and Listening for content.

It's it's just not there. It's it's people Just don't know how to do it and as a result if you debate properly and focus upon the right things

Wow People are gonna really struggle to follow what you're saying. Let's get a couple of our phone calls, and then maybe go back to the

Just I just ruined sitcoms forever well Now you know what they're doing to you is you're just being led along sort of like a mental midget

Sitcoms are basically well. What does the term amusement mean folks have you ever thought about it? What does it mean to muse it means to think upon something to ponder upon something to?

Invest time and to to examine something from different perspectives So what does the alpha privative mean that means the a going that that means not an atheist a person who doesn't believe in God you know so amusement amuse means to not think that is to just you know enjoy yourself without thinking so Amusement is basically to help you to stop thinking and that's what sitcoms are all about let's

Not do sitcom theology here and instead go up and talk to John hi

John. How you doing? Oh, yes, sir. Hey, how are you? I just had static so I wasn't sure

I guess I'm on yes, sir. How you doing um I Am calling about We had spoken a while back.

I had called about inerrancy, so it's a few months back and The issue of Robert price

Robert price was mentioned. You know Robert price. He's a skeptical He's a scholar

Yeah Well Let's let's be honest Robert price is about as radical as you can come

I mean, he's not anywhere near the midstream of any particular movements at all

Anyway, when when his name was mentioned you You said to me that his scholarship was pretty bad and one of the examples you used what you said that he?

denied He said that Luke denied the virgin birth based upon a manuscript which he said old

Latin B But you said that he had confused it with old Latin beta and old Latin beta in fact doesn't even start until after the verse in Question so you said it was

He was mistake on that well Do you do you recall what I'm referring to should

I explain and I also can tell you exactly what Dan Wallace has said and Everything else. Yeah, okay good

Dan Wallace I asked him about that He's got a radio show at free thought media .com

called the Bible geek and you can type in questions And and I asked him about this I asked him about it

And then another person asked him about it just recently and some things have come to light I thought you might be interested in and you can which

I just mentioned to you What's that you're not familiar with who Dan Wallace is I am familiar with them all yes reinventing

Jesus, okay? And you're familiar with his discussion of this particular issue and the contents of those manuscripts

And that's what I assumed you referring to that is I haven't read that I'm just gonna I just want to tell you what he said and then

I don't know if he's right or Wallace is right I want to just explain what price said in response to this claim he says that Initially when

I asked him I said I said I indicated that you had said that he was confusing me He said hey that may be perhaps

I did confuse them There are other reasons beyond that and he said he'd look into that He said there are other reasons internal reasons why he thinks it is an interpolation at Luke 134

And he he expressed those and I could tell you those but then later another person Texted him the message and they said they mentioned

Wallace's book and reinventing Jesus And I think because I had asked him this question he did go ahead and he looked into it.

He says that He has checked and double -checked this he had gotten this this claim regarding old

Latin B from Raymond Brown JN creed someone named Harnack He said that they say that old

Latin B does omit Mary's interruption at Luke 134 And then he said that he didn't have access to the manuscripts

So he contacted his friend Richard Carrier who does have access to manuscripts and he says that in fact his original claim is correct well

Latin B does omit Mary's interruption and Latin B beta does doesn't have the verse at all so it's not even an issue and he says they're mistaken on that now

I don't know if he's right or or if Wallace is right, but no evidently you haven't read what what what

Wallace has written he Just last week he mentioned that He was an error in Identifying which manuscripts were being referred to and he wrote to to Robert Price and He's posted this on a number of different places.

He then wrote a rather extended discussion of all of the relevant manuscript evidence that is available on the subject and He's posted this a number of different places

That's what I assumed you were you referring to when I mentioned Dan Wallace, but I guess

I was in error about that but the again, the the

Fact that has to be addressed here is to overthrow in fact,

I think this really does do an excellent give us an excellent example of the lengths to which

Folks like Robert Price are willing to go to attempt to to make their point to attempt to overthrow the entirety of the

Greek Manuscript tradition based upon the a minority reading of a of the

Latin is the kind of radical accept anything no matter how far out it is no matter how

Imbalanced it is a type of thing that marks the entirety of the Jesus seminar and even more so Robert Price's works

I mean the as long as someone said something in some century at some point

That could be interpreted in in some way as to as to Make a point.

Well, then it'll be used that way now. I can't imagine that anyone Anyone working actually in the scholarly field of of actually collating the text of New Testament would overthrow the entirety of the

Greek manuscript tradition on the basis not of the Latin manuscript tradition But of a single reading within the

Latin manuscript tradition rather than the entirety of The Latin manuscript tradition and it's that that willingness to to utilize that kind of information that You know, it's it's like using the same sources.

I've seen people citing. I'm trying to remember off the top of my head Which group it was now there was some Some reference

I was trying to track down in price because somebody had sent it to me about some oh, that's right Some group that dated

Jesus to a hundred years BC I'm trying to remember what the name was but but there there was a single source and I really wasn't able to hardly dig anything out of out of Prices stuff and I think

I've got all of his at least his modern stuff that would even help to substantiate this But but it ended up you've seen the film

They got no no, not the guy that wasn't there. Yeah, they got it wasn't there Yeah, and that's mentioned in there and that's where and in fact if I recall correctly, isn't it price it says it

It's it's during one of the graphic graphic things with the timeline and stuff But I I don't remember whose voice is whether they had him going or whether he's before after I'd have to go back and review

It's each one was but again that the idea that there is some confusion as to the time frame by a hundred years based on sounds like a single reference

I Just I Sit back and I go. Here's someone who is clearly got a massive agenda and is willing to overthrow 99 .999

% of the data and throw out the point zero zero one as if somehow this is relevant and you can you can make a point from it and So that's what makes me go and at least

I'm consistent at this point because I have spent a lot of time talking about people who try to make the comma

Johannium original in 1st John 5 7 and that if they were to be consistent in the application of their principles the resultant text of the

New Testament would be Massively different than the New Testament they themselves believe is inspired and inerrant and final and all the rest that stuff so I just asked for consistency of Principle here, and I don't know of any textual critical principle that would allow you to overthrow the testimony to the virgin birth and Luke based upon any manuscript any minority reading manuscript of a secondary language and if you know of anybody who does textual critical studies and Reconstructs text let's let's leave the

New Testament out of it for a moment reconstructs Latin historical texts

Utilizing that kind of methodology. Let me know who they are because I don't think anybody does Well, okay, let me let me respond to that a little bit

Prices belief is is simply this he would say that a change an addition to a manuscript

Can occur without there being any copies made of it and without anyone being aware of it depending upon how successful people are at Destroying contrary evidence if some of that is going on or if it occurs early on it early on enough like when

I told him That he may be mistaken about this manuscript. He said okay. I'll look into that, but in addition You know

I think there are internal reasons to think that it is an edit as well, so I guess your position would be that Changes cannot occur without some

External evidence and his is just the opposite well and his his again is unworkable

It's unworkable, and it's not derived from the evidence and the reasons are well. It's very simple doctor doctor the the

Alans have have Documented over and over again the character of the New Testament text in regards to tenacity tenacity is the

Concept that when a reading enters into the textual tradition that it remains there when a textual variant takes place it leaves evidence in its transmissional history, and so if there is a

If for example to use this the Luke 134 passage is in fact some secondary edit down the road the fact that there is not a single hint of It in the

Greek manuscript tradition either in Luke 134 or in the synoptic parallels is a fatal objection from any meaningful scholarly perspective to the idea that that's the original reading because if That was in fact the the reading of the minority

Latin that does not contain the phrase was the original There would be a cluster of variants in the

Greek manuscript edition because we can show this we can show where this has happened in Other contexts, but there's to have zero evidence

Is to completely beg the question and it's too And it's that's not derived from an examination of existing textual variants

That is a I don't know where he gets that, but I don't know of anybody actually working in the field that Believes that I don't know anybody and I'd I'd challenge him who does who who actually?

Functions on the basis of that because if you do then you can just sit back and you can do conjectural

Emendation until you can turn the entire new store in New Testament into the story of Pinocchio for all you want

Because you don't have to have any type of historical foundation or basis for what you're for what you're saying

But see a guy like Robert Price would say you say it's unworkable I think you're basically saying, you know, it's impossible to really get to the original.

Is that what you mean? You say I'm saying well, it does not allow you to do textual criticism. You can't do texturism.

Nobody does it that way But but Robert Price would be of the opinion. I mean by doing textual criticism you mean get to the original am

I right? Yeah, that's that's that's how you reconstruct the you know ancient text. Yes Might say that that's true.

It might be impossible to get to the original He wouldn't deny that and so so we don't know what any ancient document before Gutenberg actually said

Oh, no, you just you cannot be absolutely certain I'm surprised you say that there are no other scholars that would say that an insertion can occur without textual evidence

I I'm I would be surprised you're right about that But I don't I can't say that I know the first thing that comes to my mind and you correct me if I'm wrong

Is the Koran You know, we have writings from from people who debated about the

Koran and they say that Kali Uthman, if I'm pronouncing that right, they say he took all the old manuscripts

Destroyed them and made kind of like a Texas receptus Koran and they would say my reading he changed

I used to have a manuscript that read as such and now it's been destroyed, but I think mine is original

Well, first of all, there are very few people who said that First of all, secondly those those who did are primarily recording

Shiite Sources the Uthmanic revision is something that I have discussed in this program a number of times

Just did a lengthy presentation on in Scotland. In fact, and but all you're demonstrating here is a

Fundamentalist understanding of the vast differences between the transmission of the New Testament textual text and that of the

Quran There is no way to come to even begin to compare the two the the

Quran is By Uthman according and and that again is assuming the

Uthmanic revision even tooks takes place during the third caliphate Yeah, I'm aware of that but the point is that the text of the

Quran is then in essence Forced upon individuals by the power of the government and the sword and You have entire codices that are produced at a very early period of time

Under the oversight of an essence a redaction committee the names of which occur in Sahih al -Bukhari's commentary volume

I think it's 610 721 10 or 510 711 10 is where the names of the individuals who did this

Compilation are named that never happens for the New Testament. That is not how the

New Testament is is Promulgated the Quran is promulgated as a whole with the possibility of surah 1 and surah 1 13 1 14 coming a little bit separately but but the body of the of the text is

Existent as a singular whole from the time of the Uthmanic revision onward That's not how the

New Testament is done The New Testament is done under persecution to even copy. It was a death penalty offense in many places

It was constantly under the attack of the Roman of the Roman hierarchy until 313 they loved to destroy the

Christian scriptures and It was not done as a whole because of the fact that it was it was produced in different places so you have p46 the manuscripts of Paul you have p66 p75 is

John and These manuscripts are not produced together and they are not produced in one place

And so the whole issue of the copying during the first centuries and the mechanism of the trend of the of the transmission

It's completely different between the Quran New Testament at that point So I don't see that you're that you're bringing the

Quran up here is helping you and to try to establish the idea That you can have an original that is lost completely to the

Greek manuscript tradition It is only found in a single minority reading of the Latin But they take take the book of Luke for example

Luke was created by one person at one time So at one time it was just one book at one location now if a change occurred early on Then that would be if that would be analogous to the

Quran even if the Quran is one book But so was Luke, you know, I'm not saying you know, if some one individual is able to change 27 books

You know by themselves immediately. That's the point you would have to you would have to theorize That this quote -unquote change is first -generation so so that Luke himself is not aware of this or that or that or that or that the the original authors and those who

Were familiar with the original authors wouldn't even notice these things So you just have to just sort of theorize these things without any evidence, right?

Right. So it's just My point for me I Yeah, yeah the internal argument

I would like to hear what the internal arguments are because I can guarantee you they will demonstrate a a prejudice and a presupposition that is so Strong that it explains the utilization of this kind of this kind of secondary information

The Dan Wallace has said that he was incorrect in what he said about that one manuscript and then he goes on to say however, let's now examine exactly what's being said here and once again demonstrate that to use this kind of Argumentation is to utilize a methodology that in essence now if you can tell me does

Robert Price Say that every single work of antiquity should in essence be thrown out as to its literary accuracy

I doubt that he says that I think that he just you know, he has a It's just a testament

It is let's be honest No, wait a minute He does not apply the same kind of radical skepticism to the sources he uses to attack

Christianity that it does to Christianity That's and that's a fact He I he talks about the

Quran and he makes the same points about that I'm sorry the Quran in the Bible. I just demonstrated to have two different textual histories completely

But the point is I'll have the same skepticism about books outside of the

Bible. Okay, so theistic works, but but Or unless the theistic works he can utilize against the major religion of the day

You can you can demonstrate that I don't have any reason to think that that's the case Exclusively, it's theistic work.

That's that's my that's my reading of it. Anyways. Hey, anyways, John We got a number of other folks online. Appreciate the phone call.

Thanks very much. Thank you. Bye. Bye Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number that Frank called hi

Frank Hello Frank. Hello. Yes, sir. Oh, hi. Dr.

Why didn't realize I was done. I'm sorry. Yes, sir I'm sorry to interrupt your Islamic debate

Criticism that's right with the question. That is not about anything of Islam my question is about The spirit the

Holy Spirit's guidance of of the church Specifically through church leaders and As you know,

I'm Catholic and I just want to get a understanding of the positive

Proof that Protestants put forward of what in fact is The way in which the

Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth if not through the Pope and the bishops and councils and Everything else that the

Catholic Church would say the Holy Spirit uses Well what you just said I think sort of is illustrative of the response and that is there are no

Popes in the New Testament, there are no councils in the New Testament in the Catholic sense and the bishops and elders are are the officers of the local church and so the idea of Guiding the church into all truth is normally taken from the

Johannine text that is then expanded into some idea of a living Magisterium that allows for the development of doctrine

And in fact, I would argue the evolution and degradation of doctrine over time To where you end up having dogmas being defined and forced upon people's souls that were never known to the

Apostles themselves That is not I think the promise that Jesus made in the Gospel of John Instead he when he talks about the

Spirit leading them into all truth. There is no reason to think That that in some way shape or form creates any kind of hierarchy outside of that which the

Apostles themselves demonstrate the Apostles themselves established in ecclesiology That was made up of local churches that had elders and deacons now if there was some need for something beyond that Then we either have to fault the

Apostles for not having created it because as you must know from your own studies Certain churches like Rome itself did not have a monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century

There was no establishment of a singular bishop or the grading of officers within the church or anything like that That is a development that came over time and I would argue was not a biblical development at all but similar to the people of Israel adopting the kingship model over against them the theocratic model that Moses gave them is

A giving in to the religious impulses of the religions around them But yet as it may the

Apostles clearly did not establish any any offices beyond The elders and bishops same office and the deacons.

Yes, sir. Um When you mentioned the this is interesting that you mentioned the the

David part because I've never really heard anybody else say that other than myself I remember one time telling my wife that it seems to me that the

Catholic insistence that there must be a Pope is very similar to the The ancient

Israelites insistence that there must be a king Yes, but it what's interesting is that even though God told the

Prophet Samuel that you know, they're really rejecting me He never the less Blessed the the kingship and even made it a prophetic office.

Well Frank in the same way From the beginning it was to be one man and one woman and yet he blessed

David with multiple wives He blessed Solomon with multiple wives. That does not mean that that was God's ideal

He dealt with men where they were and I think it's it would be a false analogy to go

Well, if he blessed the the Kings in the in the Old Testament He did bless those who followed him and loved him and established his law

But he certainly did not bless those who led the people into idolatry In fact, he brought tremendous woe upon them and and tremendous judgment in the same way

As as the men who took multiple wives and so if we it certainly isn't

Rome's perspective that she is in her in her papacy is Doing something that is not appropriate from the apostolic perspective, but I would argue that there is there is no evidence either in the

New Testament or in those very primitive decades the early church that this was the

Certainly certainly wasn't the universal view of the church in any way shape or form The Roman primacy is a development over a long line time just to go over to any

Eastern Orthodox web board and you'll get lots of arguments about that but you know that the fact the fact remains that That's when when you ask this question, it sort of sounds to me a little bit like something

I've addressed a number of different times Well, and let me explain what was and that is that when when

Paul warns Timothy The difficult times are coming that he himself is leaving What does he say to him

Oh to what does he To what does he point him saying Timothy difficult times are coming.

There's going to be heresy within the church They're good people within the church. Not just outside the church. Not just persecution

There's gonna be people who rise up from amongst yourselves They said the Ephesian elders next 20 speaking perverse things at that point if there was supposed to be some mechanism outside of the

Spirit and the Scriptures Given to the church. This is where you'd find it in Acts 20 It'd find it in 2nd

Timothy chapter 3 here Timothy go here follow the successors of Peter in Rome Here elders in Ephesus wait until a monarchical

Episcopate develops in Rome and follow them, but that's not what you have in both cases you have in in in Acts the the committing of the church into the hands of God and the and the word of his grace which

Is able to save them and to Timothy Timothy you follow that which you have become convinced of and known from the time of your youth

That is that they honest our scriptures now people want to say also, I mean

It seems to me that he also left Timothy I mean

St. Paul is a bishop. He's an elder. Yes, and he left them to the church So that when when

Timothy delivered the the letter that we now call first Timothy and second letters that we call first and second

Timothy to his local church They also looked to Timothy as well because even doesn't even

St. Paul say there to make he uses a phrase with all authority You know make sure you teach this with all authority you make sure you

Yes, teach what? It's you don't make things up. It's not it's not these individuals do not themselves

Become oracles of God remember what he said just before that he said these things

Timothy Which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses and trust these two faithful men who will be able to teach others

Also, what is being passed down an authority or a or a message? So what is the relationship in between or it?

Let me rephrase it. Is there a special relationship between the Holy Spirit and Timothy when

Paul left? Timothy and first and second Timothy in his hands and obviously by extension the rest of the scriptures but was he also leaving a divine a special relationship with Timothy as a leader in a way that in a way that would

Exclude I guess the lady of his local church. Well, see I don't this this whole idea of laity and Clergy, you know,

I know that you're so accustomed to experiencing it that it's it's easy to just go with that but I Again, why is

Timothy in the position that he is in in receiving this message from Paul? Is it because Paul is somehow?

Passing on some car ism of infallibility or something to him No, he the the office that Timothy inhabits

Timothy is told likewise to find Trustworthy men to continue that office in the teaching of the church

What does the church look to the church looks to that message that has been passed down which is they honest us?

It is God -breathed. Here's the scriptures This is what's being passed down and the Spirit of God is what's going to make that to come alive

In the lives of God's people there isn't to look beyond that is to not trust that the

Holy Spirit of God Can make his word to come alive in the way he chooses to do so in each and every generation

But isn't that I mean objectively speaking that is that's absolutely right the Holy Spirit is to is the one to whom we should look but But there's a means

I mean the Holy Spirit doesn't speak audibly to a congregation that he uses Someone and he would be using

Timothy in this no He uses he uses some thing and the someone proclaims the some thing which is the scriptures

He is the what is the author? What is the Holy Spirit the author of is he is he the author of of?

You know some some type of message that changes some generation generation generation Is he the spirit of truth the one who gives us the scriptures the one that is even described in the preaching and in the book

When you have the Old Testament quoted was to say as the Holy Spirit said so here you have the scriptures being given to us which are

God speaking and we are to Agonize that once for all delivered to the

Saints faith And it is that message that is made to come alive in each and every generation of the church over time

That is the means by which God builds his church And he has continued to do so down through the ages even if it is not in a way

That the world would go ah The majority will always be right or something along those lines because that must be

God's Church well exactly and if we if If we learned anything from the Old Testament, that's not how he chose to do things

I mean if Jesus's authority is to go for anything clearly He does not correct the Old Testament and over and over again the pure worship of God is not being done by the majority

Of people in the Old Testament It's being done by the minority of people in the Old Testament and God uses that to illustrate things he uses that to teach us

So would you say that in Acts 242 when when st. Luke describes the first Christians?

So so beautifully and so profoundly when he says they devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching

Would you say that in our post was in well really any post? Apostolic age that is any time after the

Apostles what that text means is they devoted themselves to the New Testament Well, there is only one source that we have that anyone can

I think with any seriousness say contains the teachings of the Apostles and that is of course the scriptures themselves and the one of the points that I have made many times in regards to to Roman Catholicism and its claims about the

Apostles teachings is if You bifurcate that if you coming to our day sitting here in 2007, and I say to you

Frank Where do you find the teachings the Apostles and if you say to me? Well, I find it in tradition

And I find it in Scripture and I say to you. All right, can you give me a clear?

Historical line of possession of what you claim is in tradition back to the Apostles Exactly Have to do and Frank that definition of tradition you and I both know is going to have to change from Century to century for you to even make the attempt and if you have to change the definition

From our time to the point of the Apostles. You've just made my point What if what if a

Catholic would respond and this is a response? I received from a Catholic medieval philosopher at my at my

Catholic University. Well, he's that old, huh? Yeah I'm sorry. He specializes in medieval philosophy

Peter Lombard specifically, but oh now that's exciting. Oh my yeah, if you ever if you ever have trouble sleeping

Just pull out the sentences, man Yeah Anyway, so he says

I was talking to him about you know, some of my like my Inquiries, I guess we could call them into the

Catholic Catholic validity with respect to doctrine and stuff and I was telling him about solar scriptura and And I told him

I think and at during the course of the conversation I kept going back to the New Testament and he said Frank Why are you so concerned with the with it has to be in the

Bible, you know, he was getting a little frustrated He said why does it have to be in the Bible for you? And I was like, well, he said well, what about me?

Aren't I speaking of himself a you know an organ of the Holy Spirit and I was like, yeah, but you don't write scripture

Mm -hmm. I was like the New Testament is inspired and I said, you know, they were God breathed That's the word that that Paul st.

Paul uses and he said well, no, I'm not scripture, but you know But what but what is he is he an organ of tradition?

Well, that seemed to be what he was implying that you know, he and scholars and the magisterium help unlock it

But it you know What I want to get to is as comment about the intention of the of the authors and I told him

I say well look We're talking about the Immaculate Conception Specifically and and and its relation to scripture and I said did the

New Testament authors have a conscious Belief in the Immaculate Conception and I said and if they didn't can we see a conscious belief in a development of doctrine?

And in the New Testament, I said it's very important to me because if the Apostles weren't aware of it Then that kind of shuts down, you know a later a later teaching that that there is a development of doctrine and he said what and he said but The intentions of the new of the authors of the

New Testament are not inspired And I was like, well, what do you mean? They're not inspired in I mean they have to be inspired

I mean the Holy Spirit used them and he said well, he said think about it this way One of the reasons why there was allegory in the in the in the tradition of the church was because they understood that the scriptures the message of the scriptures were even a

Above and beyond the writers themselves and all did not infallibly comprehend what the message that he himself was

Notating. Mm -hmm And so we have to unlock the riches and the depths of the you know The glory and based and based upon what authority

I mean you really you know At that point the the irony to me Frank and we're running out of time here is but the irony to me is the only way

You could try to make that mechanism work if it's some type of car ism of authority passed down through the the hierarchy of the church is if you take the most conservative view of Roman Catholic history and you know

The the the Popes and everything else and that's exactly what Roman Catholic history isn't doing anymore

Because it recognizes such things as the Babylonian captivity It recognizes these issues and so how are they holding that together?

It becomes really a matter of taste honestly as to which theologian you think is doing it

So on so forth. Hey Frank, we we've got 15 minutes in there. Thanks for your phone call today.

We'll talk to you again Thanks for listening to the dividing line today. We got a run talk to you on Thursday this regular time.

God bless We must contend we need

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks