I'll Take Just One!

I hope everyone will look at the passage of 1 Kings about Solomon and Bathsheba.

Does anyone in the New Testament make the application that you do of this passage to Mary? Mr. White, that question...

It's a yes or no question, sir. Does anyone in the New Testament do what? Make the application of the passage... Of all the passages we did...

Yes. ...of Solomon and Bathsheba? Yes. No, but so what? Is there anyone in the pre -Nicene period of the

Christian Church who makes the application that you make? I really don't know, Mr. White, because it's not...

it doesn't affect the validity of the analogy. Thank you very much. Now, in that passage, it is said that Solomon says to bring a throne.

Could you tell me why it wasn't there, if this position was a position that she held on? Mr. White, you accused

Catholics of engaging in speculation. I'm not going to follow you into that same provision. Could you just answer the question, sir? You're asking me to speculate.

I don't want to... Okay, all right, that's fine. You've already said speculation is bad, so I want to follow your example and avoid it.

So there wasn't a throne for the queen mother there, normally, was there? Well, I don't know. Maybe it was kept in a special, you know, antechamber and brought in when she entered the king's presence.

You pointed out that Solomon and Bathsheba did not actually get what she desired. Is that not a parallel also indicating that Mary would fail to get what she requested of Jesus?

Obviously, Old Testament types of Jesus fall short because they have simply been being so attached to Mary.

So when there are exceptions to the type, it just doesn't happen. No, Protestants have said that, too.

Joshua was a sinner. If he's a type of Jesus, he would agree with that, wouldn't you? As in, Jesus is a sinner.

Now, Mr. Matantics, you made a parallel trend again. You admitted, well, the

Trinity is much more central, and that's why it came about early, right? Of course. The definition.

Mr. Matantics, what is the earliest church father you know that you can go to to see the doctrine of the

King outside of the New Testament? The doctrine or the word? The doctrine. The same type of doctrine that you've been trying to find in various of the early fathers.

Not still the words you say, but the belief. Couldn't you go to Clement?

Obviously, you have something up your sleeve. Would you agree with me that it is a fair statement that the earliest

Etristic writing we have, say, let's take Clement. Your first Catholic doctrine was written in the second century.

Okay. The letter of Clement to the Corinthians, let's use Ignatius. Would you not agree with me that both of these documents, especially

Ignatius, are filled with Trinitarian passages and references of any Christ? They're just rehashes of what you have in Scripture.

You have references to the grace of God, the thought of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of the Holy Ghost. And you always use Christ as God, right?

Of course, the Bible does too. Okay, so the point is that the doctrine of the

Trinity, you can find people functioning on that basis. In the earliest

Etristic references. Now, may I ask you if you will find anyone functioning on the basis of Mary as Queen of Heaven, Beatrix of all graces, that all grace accrues to men by God's will to Mary alone in any writing post -Nicene.

How far do you want to go? What's the earliest you're going to find? It's irrelevant because I admit it's later.

Okay, then that's it. In other words, you can't answer the question. I just answered it. Okay, it's irrelevant. No, I said it's going to occur at a later time.

You're going to have clear articulations of Mary's union with Jesus later than you have clear articulations of the Trinity.

You said it was a terrific injustice of me to point out how long it took for this doctrine to be asserted.

And made dogma, of course, within this century. And you can parallel this with the

Council of Chalcedon, which in 451 defined the two natures of Christ. If the amount of time indicates the importance of the

Church, would it not follow that a doctrine that is defined 1 ,500 years after the nature of Christ means that it's rather unimportant?

No, it would mean that it's rather unimportant, maybe relatively less important than other agendas that were had. And yet, can a person be in full union with the

Catholic Church, in your opinion, and reject the idea that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven?

Mr. White, my opinion is irrelevant. Yes, I know. You don't need to answer that question. The Catholic Church teaches that you have to believe that and every fact about Mary.

Is it a fact of revelation? Of course it is. Well, it's a fact of revelation that no one knows with absolute certainty until 1 ,950 years after we know it.

That's not true. The people who witnessed it certainly knew with absolute certainty.

But you don't have any evidence that they existed, do you? Of course I do. Where? In the fact that there was a tradition passed on down.

You say there was a tradition passed on down. You can't show us where it is. You admit there was a tradition passed on down, Mr. White. You simply think the tradition is not founded in fact, but you admit there's a tradition.

No, I don't. That was a question. Now it's your turn, so I guess we'll put it that way.

Is that what you're saying? No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that there was no ancient tradition that has any type of meaningful historical basis to it.

That there were eyewitnesses. You paralleled it with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jerry. Let's ask ourselves the question.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ. Who were the eyewitnesses? Did they write? Did they preach?

Do we have evidence of this outside of the New Testament? The answer to all of these is yes. Now we ask the question about this alleged tradition of eyewitnesses and the assumption.

Did they write? No. Did they preach? No. Does anyone outside of the Christian church or even in the Christian church ever make reference to this in the first half millennium?

No. There is no parallel. No. Show it to me. Well, that was his turn to ask you questions.

Did you get that question? Well, that was, that was, I was answering his questions. All right. Mr.

White, you said that we can go back and demonstrate. You said there's a fundamental difference here.

We can go back and we can demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How, Mr. White?

How can you demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Well, the same way the Christian people have been doing it for a very long time.

And that is you can point to the eyewitnesses who wrote, who preached, who died for their faith. They left us a text that is the greatest and most accurate text of any ancient document that exists in all the world.

And the very fact they went out and changed the world and that this is even recorded for us in secular materials.

I'm not making any point. I'm pointing out to you that the basis upon which we know the resurrection is not the authority of the modern

Roman Catholic Church. You have, you have the authority. Now, see, you're putting a equivocation here. It's not the modern Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, yes. You believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Is that not correct?

And Paul and numerous others. Yes. How do you know that Matthew wrote that gospel?

Well, first of all, this is a very interesting statement because it goes to the issue of soul scripture and the issue of the canon.

And it is interesting to me that this question continues being asked over and over again. I'm going to have to ask you until I hear the answer.

Because, first of all, whether Mark or whether Matthew wrote Matthew, and as you know, the gospel of Matthew does not say that, right?

Is not relevant to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And you know that. But the fact is, the only medium that you have,

I believe. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Wagner, for the audience's sake, is that the only way you know you have documents coming from my witnesses is that church fathers said, this comes from an apostle, this comes from an apostolic associate,

Mark comes from Peter's associate and secretary, Luke is written by Paul's companion, John is written by the apostle

John. And that same basis in which you, don't misunderstand my question, folks.

I accept Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as every believing Catholic as a valid testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'm not trying to sow seeds of skepticism in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I'm simply trying to say, if you believe in that resurrection, by the very same principles, you have to believe in the other things the apostles taught.

Is that a question? Yes. My response is, they didn't teach the doctrine you're trying to parallel. You are assuming the existence of historical evidence, and I keep asking you,

Mr. Medetics, if you say that the apostles taught this, are you saying that the apostles taught this? Yes, I am.

Then show me some evidence. The passage that you cited to me in 2 Thessalonians says that we are to hold to tradition that was taught to us by word, mouth, or by letter.

That passage says that those traditions had already been taught to all the Thessalonians. This wasn't any secret thing.

Where is the evidence, Mr. Medetics? There isn't any evidence. Your own scholars have it.

Mr. White, you don't have the original documents that the apostles wrote. You have a tradition that the documents you hold in your hand, that you hold in your testament, are faithfully transcribed and transmitted copies of the original autographs.

Yes, you do. No, sir, that is not untrue. All you have is the testimony of the church that the documents you have now do indeed come from the apostles.

You mean we don't have the documents themselves? You don't have the documents they wrote. The validity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, sir, is not based upon someone who lived 200 or 300 years later.

It's based upon the fact that you've been given a patrimony. You've been given something that says, this comes from the apostles.

You're arguing in circles. You don't know if they're scriptures if the people who tell you they're scriptures are untrustworthy.

Now, those same people also give traditions saying the apostles taught special things about Mary.

If you impeach those witnesses and say, those church fighters don't know what the heck they're talking about, you have no way of knowing that they're giving you a

Bible you can trust. Athanasius gave me the same canon of New Testament I have.

Show me one place where you're taught about an assumption of Mary, her queen, and her oration. I don't have to. How about in the councils?

Hippo, Carthage. I don't want Mr. White. You're making the assertion that they taught these same things, and I'm undercutting my own self.

They didn't teach these same things. I don't have to demonstrate that every single church father taught every single thing.