Newsweek Attacks Christianity for Christmas: Refutation of Kurt Eichenwald’s Article

and greetings welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday afternoon the only dividing line for this week it is

Christmas week 2014 and Thursday is

Christmas Day and so no we we won't we don't like doing the webcast when there's absolutely positively no one watching or listening so well there probably would be we there there there might be a dozen people who if we did something on on Thursday would actually would actually listen and that's frightening to me it's very frightening that anyone would actually do that probably a jumbo edition of the program today that'll make up a little bit for the fact that we are a little bit short on dividing line time this week and I was going to do some basic stuff as I could talk a little about Christmas we're still gonna do that basically because it appeared in the article but this morning and I was gonna go back and look but I ended up investing so much time in a tweet fest conversation with the author of the cover article for Newsweek magazine that I just didn't have time to to go back and look at it and that's that's a shame but Kurt Eichenwald and I had an extensive discussion which if you're interested you can go to Dr.

Oakley 1689 on Twitter and follow the conversation that took place there it ended suddenly 33 minutes ago without any announcement that it was ending but that's okay it is available there if you want to take a look at it the article is entitled the

Bible so misunderstood it's a sin now let me tell you before I launch into this at some point in the next few minutes a my co -host is going to finally arrive here at the office and we're going to come to a screeching halt for just a few moments so that the co -host can make a few comments and then we will go back directly to the review of the article so I'm just gonna let you know ahead of time that there's gonna be we're not gonna take a break we're good it's gonna be you know right here as part of the program but just letting you know that that will take place eventually and that that is that is the that is the plan anyway there's nothing surprising to me whatsoever that Newsweek the week of Christmas would post yet another bald -faced attack upon the

Christian faith there's nothing new about this this is this is what the mainstream media has been about for decades and there's certainly nothing new well

I guess there is something new that the the level of of error in this particular article is shocking

I guess 30 years ago there might have been editors that would have caught some of the incredible errors talking about how the at the

Council of Constantinople Jesus became Father Son and Holy Spirit you know

I mean oh yeah stuff on a level that that makes anyone who knows anything about church history just go really maybe 30 years ago there might have been editors that would catch up it just anymore as long as it's negative toward the

Christian faith toward belief in the Bible toward evangelicalism as a whole whatever that is anymore it will end up in print or does

Newsweek even I don't even think Newsweek does print anymore I think it's just all online so and someone actually said on on Twitter that by doing this

I was actually doubling Newsweek's readership this week you have to make sure they can get in when they when they arrive here so just so you so you know anyway and that may be that may be the case but the the primary reason

I'm responding this is not because there's anything new in it it is it is basically a really bad and badly understood repetition of the of Bart Ehrman without actually understanding

Bart Ehrman okay so you know we've we've done the Bart Ehrman stuff we have played entire presentations by Bart Ehrman and we've gone into the

Greek text and we've you know we've we've done all this kind of stuff but that's just just what we're gonna be looking at in this particular article but the reason to look at it is to document the fundamental bigotry and bias of the mainstream media now with that with that said my my co -host has has arrived and would she like to just just walk in maybe come here come here klemski doodles hi hey there oh hello well see these cameras right here there are people that are looking at us right now and they're watching us all over the place yeah see there's a camera right there see and they're looking at us and see see we're up there on the screen be up there on the screen see grandpa yeah say hello world you say hello world yeah yeah very good hello world so you're my co -host right now can you say co -host okay that's close and this is called the dividing line is whose is that Oh shoes off oh

I forgot Clementine has a an aversion to wearing shoes indoors which is pretty cool it's pretty cool and that's dad yeah and you don't know him his name is rich and you say hi rich and of course

I'm gonna tell everybody this is my granddaughter Clementine Clementine that's right and she lives in Georgia in Georgia right yeah and where's my where's my hair supposed to be yeah yeah and but it's not there is it no no it's it's it's sort of gone yeah but that's okay this is see that up there you get to watch this you watch this every once in a while when grandpa does this don't you yeah yeah yeah now you're on the dividing line yeah there you are can you see yourself who is that who is that grandpa and who's grandpa holding who am

I holding Clementine I'm holding Clementine and no I'm not holding dad dad would be too big for me to hold he's a big guy he's a big guy so I just want you to join me on the dividing line and say hi to everybody very good you wanna go back to daddy okay just oh

I need to give you your shoes here you go thank you don't forget to shore

Betsy oh thank you for visiting me

Clementine I appreciate that wants to go back to see grandpa grandpa's got to talk to everybody yeah yeah and go make sure to go in my office and see all the all the stuff in there

I think you'll like it I think you'll like it ah I tell you it's you you find out that you are that you're getting older when you when you have grandchildren and and of course this she just turned to just a few days ago three days ago and she is she's chattering away and and they say the most amazing things as we all remember and she's so much like her mom and so it's it's great to think back 23 years to the last time

I had one that small and yeah so yeah she's she's a cutie there's no no toys around that one she's she's cute so I appreciate that for bringing her over bringing her over to visit and make her guest appearance on the dividing line and who knows maybe maybe next year we'll have more of a discussion of things but I thought she did pretty pretty well anyways all right

I better clear up the clear up the coughing there because we have a lot of material to cover today the

Bible so misunderstood it's a sin well listen to how this begins they wave their

Bibles at passers -by screaming their condemnations of homosexuals they fall on their knees worshiping the base of granite monuments the

Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school they appeal to God to save America from their political opponents mostly

Democrats they gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country's salvation they are

God's frauds cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch they are joined by religious rationalizers fundamentalists who unable to find scripture support their and unable to find scripture supporting their biases and beliefs twist phrases and modify translations to prove they're honoring the

Bible's words well obviously mr. Eichenwald has a rather strong anti -reformed

I'm sorry anti -evangelical bias he doesn't I don't think seem to really have much knowledge of serious conservative

Bible believers he certainly doesn't show in this article there is no meaningful reference to any any serious conservative biblical scholarship on church history

Bible translation the doctrine of the Trinity anything that is attacked in this article the author shows no knowledge and you can go to the

Twitter feed listen listen to how many questions I asked that got no answer at all but what he really dislikes are political conservatives who use the

Bible and you know what I don't like political conservatives that use the Bible and don't live by it either

I really don't I'm not one of those folks that's waving the

Bible around and saying vote for Republicans because I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat either neither of the two political parties are conservative enough for me so I'm not either one

I'm one of those dreaded independents but independents are normally in between the two I'm over there somewhere so anyway

I don't fit into these categories so you might say well then why are you responding to this because in attacking these people he calls biblically illiterate he says in the next paragraph

America is being besieged by biblical illiteracy mr. Eichenwald demonstrates that he is biblically illiterate and he is the number of errors the that we are going to document here are shocking but the scary thing is as a liberal he thinks he's biblically illiterate because he's read some

Bart Ehrman and some some liberals over here and liberals over there and that makes him biblically literate that's the danger that's the danger he says the

Bible is not the book many American fundamentalists and political opportunists think it is or more precisely what they want it to be their lack of knowledge about the

Bible is well established well that might be true of certain people the problem is that this article ignores the reality of serious biblically literate know the original languages no church history know why we believe the

Trinity and what it is Christians ignores us we're not there we're not there we're nowhere around Newsweek's exploration here of the

Bible's history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God baloney baloney of course it is advancing a particular theology it's advancing a particular theology it says the

Bible is not truly the Word of God bye -bye we'll see you at home sorry bye -bye you see at home she's cuter than anybody in the audience so love you bye -bye be at home she's waving at me yeah yeah that wrapped around what is a little finger yeah wrap there she is yeah or I'm wrapped around I'm not sure how that works but it doesn't matter she's she's gorgeous and and you can't argue that one can you nope can't argue that one what were we saying oh yes there is a particular theology being presented here and it is the theology that the

Word of God is not clear enough to actually address issues such as the Trinity homosexuality it is a book what's the what's the term is used here at the bottom it's a long article the term that is used the bottom here's here's under judge not one of the most misused text in the

New Testament because Jesus told us a judge of the righteous judgment based upon the Word of God but so why study the

Bible at all since it's loaded with contradictions and translation errors and wasn't written by witnesses and includes words add by unknown scribes to inject church orthodoxy should just be abandoned you're telling me that's not a theological position of course it is by ignoring the fact that you have a position you're hoping not to have to defend it been there done that mr.

Eichenwald if you happen to be watching this and I've invited you we will open the phones in 45 minutes wherever I am in my response to open the phones in 45 minutes 877 -753 -3341 and we'll take one phone call from you nothing more okay that's the only phone call we'll take so you are presenting a position here whether you want to defend it or not whether you can defend it

I don't think you can but you are presenting a position and you can't you can't dodge it you can't duck it so rather it is designed to shine a light on a book that has been abused by people who claim to review it don't to revere it but don't read it in the process creating misery for others interesting enough when you talk about misery for others what you frequently focus upon is the issue of homosexuality and yet I saw no evidence that you have even attempted to listen to a meaningful biblical presentation on the nature of gender in the

Bible only to the liberals I asked you if you had read Gagnon you didn't respond

I asked you read Michael Brown you didn't respond I didn't bother to ask you if you read my book on the subject because that was obvious the bias here this is not this is not journalism this is a hit piece there is no attempt at fairness none no attempt at fairness at all in this article none and shame on Newsweek and shame of Mr.

Eichenwald for for doing this Mr. Eichenwald I've written 24 books maybe 23 in the one

I'm writing with a Muslim scholar right now I'll be out later you look at them you will never find me writing material like this never read the same -sex controversy we interact with the other side read whatever

Christians should know about the Quran I am fair with the Quran in my experience we conservatives read liberals

I went to fuller theological seminary for crying out loud we read the liberals we interact with the liberals we understand the liberals the liberals don't think we have anything meaningful to say and so they ignore us completely that's what we have here okay when the illiteracy of self -proclaimed biblical literalist leads parents to banish children from their homes

I would assume again that has something to do with homosexuality when it sets neighbor against neighbor not sure what when it engenders hate and condemnation probably homosexuality again when it impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement that must be accepting the great wisdom that man is but the result of cosmic accident the topic has become too important for Americans to ignore whether they are deeply devout or tepidly faithful believers or atheists this examination based in large part on the works of scores of theologians and scholars some of which dates back centuries this is examination based on scholarship that's what

I'd say no it isn't it's based on a narrow range of scholarship and ignores all of the responses it assumes for example the

Bauer hypothesis assumes it states it as a fact even when the sources that it cites recognize the holes in the hypothesis

I doubt very much that mr. Eichenwalde has ever taken the time to read something such as the heresy of orthodoxy

I suggested it to him I suggested it to him will he read it I really get the feeling

I really get the feeling that he will not but he claims that this is an examination based on scholarship and so that's the standard that needs to be used so when you say things like all

Christians didn't know they were textual variation when that was one of the first things that's talked about in patristic sources you have such things as a diatesser on you have the

Hexopla you have the discussions of textual variations in the third century when you want to go all the way back to then and is well known by any biblically literate person to this day and we deal with these things and we talk about these things then you're going to be held to the standard a scholarly standard and ask why would you say these things why would you make these statements why would you say at the

Council of Constantinople Jesus became father son Holy Spirit when no one no one no one would ever say that you cannot provide a single source it would even come close to saying that that's a gross misunderstanding you've not read anything in the

Council of Constantinople Mr. Eichenwald and you know it you know you've not read anything you're reading secondary sources it's just a fact anyway is a review of the

Bible's history and a recounting of its words then you better be accurate it is only through accepting where the

Bible comes from and who put it together that anyone can comprehend what history's most important book says and just as important what it does not say well

I agree with that the problem is that the facts you give are not the facts of history and you don't seem to know the other side you're giving a very biased perspective he says no television preacher has ever read the

Bible neither has any evangelical politician neither has the Pope neither have I and neither have you at best we've all read a bad translation a translation of translations of translations of hand -copied copies of copies of copies of copies and on and on hundreds of times there is a gross misunderstanding of Bart Ehrman here is a man who does not understand the difference between translation and transmission because there are many men other than myself who have read the

Bible read the Bible in Greek read the Bible in Hebrew preach from the Bible in Greek preach from the

Bible in Hebrew and we can examine the critical text the

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgart tensia we can examine the Nestle on 28th edition we can look at the UBS now 5th edition we can look at textus receptus if you want to we have them all right there

I've got him right here on the screen will be looking one the textual variants that you massacred in your conversation a little bit later on that is a clear indication that you do not understand the difference between translation and transmission evidently you don't believe that we can obtain the original readings

I would I would observe you sir listen to my debate with Bart Ehrman and listen to the questions that I asked him and listen what

I asked him to show us where he thinks we do not contain in any Greek manuscript the original readings in New Testament and he gave us one example a conjectural inundation one example if you'll really listen to Ehrman you'll discover the way he says is we're just tinkering with the text we're just tinkering with it we've we've gone as close as we can get and for the vast majority the text of New Testament he has to admit we have the original readings even when there's a variation have to admit yeah one of those variants is is the original yeah that's true

I'm sorry sir I have I have read

Ehrman I have listened to Ehrman's classes I have debated Ehrman I have reviewed Ehrman's debates when he's debated other people on this program

I know more about Bart Ehrman than you will ever know mr. Eichmann Eichenwald excuse me

Eichenwald and the reality is you don't know him you don't know what he's saying you don't understand what he's saying and so for you to say no one has ever read the

Bible is absurd it is absurd you make the

King James the standard really I'm sorry you even claim to have studied textual criticism but when

I asked you who who did you study under whom when where you refused to answer maybe you can tell us in in a few minutes you know four o 'clock our time six o 'clock

Eastern Standard Time I'm not sure where you are about 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation in the

New Testament that's true but it's also irrelevant how is canonization relevant to the accuracy of say manuscript p52 from John chapter 18 or a p75 the gospel manuscript p66 gospel manuscript p46 have you examined any of these we regularly talk about these manuscripts on this program as our our regular listeners would be able to explain to you we show them on the screen we talk about them we know about these things um the first books ill tests were written 1 ,000 years before that I would if it's the 400 that I disagree

I would I would if it's it but if you're saying the writing of the first Christian manuscripts then you know 1 ,500 years approximately would be would be good he says there were no printing presses until a thousand years later yep handwritten manuscripts both

Old and New Testament we discuss it all the time he says these manuscripts were originally written talking about the

New Testament in coin a or common Greek and not all the amateur copyist spoke the language or even fully literate it's true by the way there were some professionals who were used in the period when

Christianity was a religio illicita but there were others who were not we can tell by looking at which manuscript is which these are things that we study these are things that we actually do know some copy the script not understanding the words and coin a was written was known as script yo continua or magisterial script meaning no space between words and no punctuation well almost no punctuation there actually was some if you have ever done any reading of these manuscripts which of course you have not because you admitted you don't read

Greek so a sentence like we should go eat mom could be interpreted as we should go eat mom or we should go eat mom that demonstrates that once again you don't read

Greek because unlike English Greek utilizes case case endings and verbal verbal endings and prefixes to not only indicate tense mode voice on so forth but direct objects and things like that Greek is considerably clearer in its ability to carry data in a smaller number of words in English that's just a reality that again you would know if you stay in language then we have this statement none of this mattered for centuries because Christians were certain

God had guided the hand not only the original writers but also of those copies who are you talking about are you talking about again

I go back to origin and go back to tell you I go back to the earliest almost the earliest right there's nothing in Ignatius I don't think there's anything in in Clement or Justin and then

I'll take that back on Justin there might actually know the thing about be something about yeah there is in Justin discussion of a variation in in Justin Martyr and all the way through the history of the church

I can document document for you in every single century the knowledge of the Christian people in regards to the means by which the the

New Testament documents annual testament documents were transmitted to us in handwritten format and the variations that exist there but in the past hundred years or so yeah like Erasmus didn't talk about these things in 1516 in his annotations in the past 100 years or so tens of thousands of manuscripts in New Testament have been discovered it's actually been taking place ever since the time that Erasmus collated the first printed edition it's been taking place anyway dating back centuries well yeah vast majority from after 1000 but especially the discovery of the papyri in the 1930s biggest development that has taken place but of course

Sinaiticus Vaticanus Alexandrinus the the unsealed text in the last century very important as well and what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the book differ significantly from earlier ones in fact even copies from the same time periods different from each other what do you mean by significantly mr.

Eichenwald the reality is that if you apply the same rules of hermeneutics and exegesis and again listen to my debate with airmen if you don't believe me

I asked him these things you apply the same rules of hermeneutics and exegesis to what is called the

Byzantine manuscript tradition which was what underlies the King James which is the majority text you apply the same rules of interpretation exegesis to that as to the most eclectic modern text that we have that goes back to the earliest manuscripts and you will not come up with a different teaching you will not come up with a different theology you will not debated that more than once bait again quote there are more variations among our manuscripts and there are words in New Testament says dr.

Bart D Irwin a groundbreaking biblical scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina who has written many books on New Testament yeah problem is even

Irwin will admit that taking that sentence by itself is to misunderstand what he's saying now I fault him for letting people do that do you know how many words are on the

New Testament mr. Eichenwald 130 130 ,000 162 in the

Nestle all in 27th edition in the coin a Greek approximately 400 ,000 textual variants so there are more variants than there are words 99 % of them cannot be translated out of Greek 99 % so in reality sir serious scholars will tell you they're about 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 meaningful textual variants that could be viable that is they could be original and they actually impact the translation of the language into another language such as into English or German or anything else 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 that's a whole lot less than 138 ,000 162 so that is a misleading statement and you did not qualify because sir you don't know it needs to be qualified that's the problem did you interview anyone who could give you another perspective did you even think about it sir why not why not that's what that's what believing

Christians who read this kind of stuff and consider this to be an attack upon their faith would like to know why the unfairness why the bias why the bigotry that's what we want to know is that is that not a fair question

I've written a book told you about before whatever

Christian needs to know about the Quran how many pages is this just over 300 pages a small book lots of endnotes lots of references to the

Hadith references to the Arabic I've learned enough Arabic to at least work with the text and certainly no expert but since I've studied

Hebrew it helped a lot if a Muslim asks me why are you so unfair

I'm gonna give an answer they've never said that not a one of those reds that has said you were unfair if I can be fair to the

Muslims my question to you is why can't you be fair to the Christians just a question just a question then you start talking about some of the textual variance and you did admit most these discrepancies are little more than the handwritten equivalent of a typo but that error was then included by future scribes again that's a simplified view there were also minor changes made by literate scribes centuries after the manuscripts were written because of what they decide were flaws in the accounts they are recopying possibly and you know how we know that sir is because we can actually discern what the original is because we couldn't we wouldn't know that would we yeah then you give an example here's the example and this is this is where most

Christians do not have the resources that the resources are available to all of us but do not have the resources to be able to check out what you're saying for example an early version of Luke 316 the

New Testament said notice it said an early version singular I caught that most people wouldn't an early version of Luke 316 the

New Testament said John answered saying to all of them the problem was not that no one had asked John the problem was that no one had asked

John anything so a 5th century scribe fix that by changing the words to John knowing what they were thinking said today most modern

English Bibles have returned the correct yet confusing John answered others such as the New Life Version Bible use other words that paper over the inconsistency now

I've never even heard the New Life Version Bible sounds like a paraphrase to me paraphrases should not even be included in this because they're not translations most people would look at that and go well that's a little troubling because most people can't look to what we have on the screen right now and that is according this

Bible software my my chosen version here and unfortunately that's a little bit small but this is my

I'll uh I'll take the instant details off here and we'll blow this this side up a little bit right here right here is this is any 27 apparatus

I should change that to any 28 shouldn't I well I've got any 27 here which doesn't have any changes in the

Gospels anyways um here is the variant he's talking about you can see the variant that's marked here in the

Greek text right here right up against up a credit top Lego impasse and hot yet you want ace and here's the one manuscript one single manuscript that reads differently and what is it codex

D now what is codex D well in the conference that we did prior to my debate with Bart Ehrman in Florida which have we put that up the actual conference is up oh good which is available on YouTube I do any what now you're wondering about now you're second -guessing yourself aren't you no that's not

Clementine in the other that's rich we certainly recorded it yeah you know that's a good question you have to look into it because I thought those are pretty good presentations yeah well we'll have to look into it because I didn't like it

I think American Vision has it so we'd like to I'd like to ask if we would have at least the presentation that I made because I went through Bart Ehrman's favorite textual variants and we talked about these things and one of the main things

I talked about was this exact manuscript codex Beza came to Bridges codex

Beza is the New Living translation the New Living Bible of the ancient church it's not really meant to be a manuscript of the

New Testament the author was paraphrasing for example in the book of Acts when

Peter is released from prison the author tells us that he descended as I recall 29 steps to the street the point being that scholars have recognized when codex

D is by itself without any other support from what's called the Western text from the

Latin Vulgate or things like that it's not it doesn't have any possibility of being original and neither does this so you picked a particularly bad example there's really no question about what is found in Luke because if you only have codex

D it's it can't be original it just goes off on its own far far too often so where'd you get that example have you read any books on codex

D on its on its textual proclivities good question lots of interesting pictures in here the author clearly does not like conservative evangelicals then he starts talking about the periphery adultery and I you know when

I I've traveled literally all over the world when

I did my two -part presentation in South Africa on New Testament reliability just a few weeks ago literally in October one of the things

I said to the audience was folks well the reasons I'm talking to you about things such as the longer ending of Mark John 753 through 811 the periphery adultery the reason

I'm talking about these things is unbelievers use these to bludgeon us over the head we need to talk about this stuff in this context now or our young people will be encountering out there in the context of unbelief and I cannot think of a better example than this here it is now is the periphery adultery some major issues some something where well you know it's like it's like how

Dan Wallace describes it he describes it as his favorite story that's not in the

Bible and in fact what's interesting is I was

I still have in my Evernote thing for the dividing line and I don't think

I got around to it there was a an attack against me on the Puritan board because I raised this very story on the

Janet Mefford show when I filled in for her on the nationwide program a year ago this

Pat was it this past summer a year ago this past summer I can't remember now anyways when

I filled in for it was a year ago this past summer when I filled in for Janet Mefford during one of the hours

I spent one of the entire sections the program specifically talking about the percocet ultra and I said in that that I would never preach from this as the

Word of God because it is not original it in fact I think one of the primary reasons to to demonstrate that the percocet adultery is not original is because in some manuscripts specifically in family one it is found after Luke 21 38 and in family 13 it's found after Luke 24 53 when you have a pericope that is found in multiple books in different places that is clearly a pericope fine trying to find a place to land it was a very favorite story but it was not original with John and so I would not preach from it and man there were people are angry with me about that but I tell all my audiences about John 753

John 5 for the longer ending of Mark 1st John 5 7 we address all of these things they are well known and there are strong solid answers for anyone who will use these things so he says unfortunately

John didn't write it scribes made up sometime the Middle Ages again

I'm sorry mr. Eichenwald use your resources do some research it is it is an early edition it's not

Middle Ages it's I'm sorry but it's not a

Middle Age thing it hasn't earlier it's it's fifth century it's not the

Middle Ages I guess you could redefine Middle Ages to push it back to the 5th century if you wanted to I suppose it does not appear in any of the other three

Gospels irrelevant or in any of the early Greek versions of John well earliest yes it's not super late but the evidence is clear that it is it is not original with John I agree but you didn't even get that quite right unfortunately then we have the longer ending of Mark but once again the verses came from a creative scribe long after the

Gospel Mark was written in fact the earliest version of Mark stop at 16 8 you're overstating your case on this now again I agree that Mark originally ended at Mark 16 8 but the evidence for the long writing of Mark is significantly better than for the

Percopi adultery and it's much earlier much earlier I think Irenaeus makes reference to it so you're talking into the second century so you didn't get that one quite right either but again then you talked about first John 5 1 1st

John 5 7 which isn't even in the category of these it is a much later

I mean it's not found any Greek manuscript for the 14th century a word similar to it are found in Latin but it came plainly came in from the

Latin you need to do some reading on Erasmus and the origination of the Texas Receptus and things like that get a little more accurate and what you're stating you talked about Luke 22 20 which we've talked about in regards to Bart Ehrman Luke 24 51 these first appeared in manuscripts used by the translators who created the

King James Bible but are not in the Greek copies from hundreds of years earlier the

King James translators did not use manuscripts they use printed editions they used the five editions of Erasmus they used the 1551

Stephanus and the 1598 Beza I wrote a book on this you might find interesting but since it was written by an evangelical conservative evidently that doesn't really count with you then translation transubstantiation don't have any earthly idea what in the world that means then comes the problem of accurate translation well by the way you didn't really come to a conclusion you didn't seem to wrestle with the idea that we continue to have all the original readings you didn't wrestle with the tenacity of the text you didn't wrestle with the number of manuscripts that we have the earlier manuscripts that we have all you did was throw out textual variants and you didn't come to any conclusions you didn't even come to conclusions that Erman comes to you didn't talk about any of his favorite ones why do you think that just simply throwing those things out means something what were you trying to communicate there are those of us who believe in biblical inerrancy that know far more about textual criticism than you know we know about every single reference you gave and many more that you are not aware of so what's the necessary connection in your mind between the existence of textual variation and the original inspiration do you go with Erman who says that if it was ever inspired there could be no textual variation

I want to get him to actually defend that because on a theological basis you can't but is that what you're trying to communicate you didn't stay you didn't say another one of the reasons

I find mr. Eichenwald I teach regularly

I just got back from teaching in Kiev and Berlin on justification the

Trinity I've taught textual criticism in Berlin I would not accept your article as a paper in an undergraduate freshman class

I would fail it immediately and ask you to rewrite it it's that bad not only do you just simply throw out stuff and you you know you're about to cite

Jason David de Boone from up in Northern Arizona University you do realize that there are all sorts of people on the other side he's he is way out there way out there so you you you'll throw a few names out you show no interest in handling them accurately or in showing and knowing anything about responses these perspectives and of course the errors then comes the problem of accurate translation many words in New Testament Greek don't have clear

English equivalents sentence structure idioms stylistic differences all these are challenges when converting versions of New Testament books into English not nearly as bad as you think it is not nearly as bad we can we can read

Greek quite well and while while we can sit around and argue oh well one that I was listening to just recently on a ride

I was doing yesterday we have to argue with NT right over what is found in Romans 4 1 and Romans 4 1 toon a rumen and when you look at a rumen therefore what shall we say

Abraham has found and then right goes against pretty much everybody in saying have we found

Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh that's everybody else has said what did

Abraham our forefather according to flesh fine but the fact is we can translate every single word there the issue is what the emphasis falls upon and I think the rest of the text will answer that question but that's a that's not the normal situation the

Greek language is considerably more accurate and expressive than the English languages so your radical skepticism only comes from your ignorance sir and I don't know why you keep saying in our

Twitter dialogue that when I say you're ignorant I'm insulting you and calling you names if you don't know the subject don't publish a national magazine article on it someone might say you're ignorant if I publish an article on accounting in a national accounting magazine when people say wow you're ignorant that will not be an insult that'll be a fact and in adult scholarship and you're the ones claim you're claiming right there to be doing scholarship when you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about that's called ignorance that's not name calling sir

I've never called you a name and I really find your postmodern you need to respect my views all views are equal way of thinking you don't apply that in your life it's inconsistent and it does not help the conversation it really doesn't it just is a way of dodging what the problem is in what you're saying and this can't be solved with a

Berlitz course Koine is ancient Greek and not spoken anymore this is why English translations differ with many have been revised reflective views and guesses of the modern translators that's hyper skepticism hyper skepticism yes the primary reason of modern translations differ well obviously

King James New King James based on the Texas Receptus modern translations based upon an eclectic text but the primary differences are based upon translational methodology and I have a real problem with all these people doing these massive this massive simplification you can't simplify the text below the level where the original actually exists that's where the real problem comes in the gold standard of English Bibles the

King James Version played in 1611 no it's not not anymore I'm sorry it's not you're talking about a translation based upon half a dozen manuscripts from 400 years ago is the standard don't think so says but that was not a translation of the original

Greek instead of Church of England committee relied primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from Greek that is not true that's that's ridiculous they did know the

Latin some some of the King James translators were more familiar with or more comfortable with Latin phraseology than they were with Greek but they were translating as I said the five editions of Erasmus in 15 16 and 1535 the 1551 of Stephanus or 1555

Stephan 1551 Stephanus and the 1598 of Beza so they are not translating the

Latin Vulgate they are not translating Latin translations of the Greek I'm sorry sir you just aren't right about that now did they look at the

Vulgate sure they they look at the Septuagint sure did they look at other yeah that doesn't mean they were translating them it's just just wrong just wrong and then you go after quote to Boone and who you again

I I I get the feeling that you've really been exposed whether you realize or not to a lot of Aryan Unitarian stuff for example you you use as an example proskune oh for example proskune oh a

Greek word used about six times in New Testament equates to something along the lines of to prostrate oneself as well as to praise

God that was translated in Latin as a doro which in the King James Bible became worship but those two words don't mean precisely the same thing when the

King James Bible was written worship could be used to describe both exhibiting reverence for God and prostrating oneself while not perfect it's a decent translation the point is sir the proskune oh needs to be translated contextually when it's used in a religious context it's translated as worship when it's used for example in together with the true oh or do you oh sometimes translating the

Hebrew term then it's in a religious context when it's a soldier prostrating himself to his commander it's obviously not religious worship it's contextually translated there's really nothing all that difficult about it but you confuse it says but English Bibles adopted later the

New International Bible New American Standard Bible Living Bible and so on and by putting Living Bible in with two actual translations you again demonstrate you don't really know what you're talking about here

I'm sorry that's just the reality you just put paraphrase in with the

New International which is a dynamic translation and the New American Standard Bible that I have been a critical consultant on which is a much more formal equivalency translation and you don't seem to recognize what the differences are drop the word worship when it referenced anyone other than God or Jesus and so each time proskune

Oh appear in the Greek manuscript regarding Jesus and these newer Bibles he is worshipped but when applied to someone else the exact same word is translated as bow or something similar then you make try to make this point by translating the same word different ways these modern

Bibles are adding a bit of linguistic support the idea that people that the people who knew Jesus understood him to be

God well that depends on the trans on the on the on the context but sir did you bother to look up the use of proskune now do you look at the end of Matthew when

Jesus is resurrected and the disciples meet him on the hillside and it says some worshipped him but others doubted what do you think proskune

Oh means there when John bows down to give proskune Oh to the angel in John chapter in Revelation chapter 19 what does the angel say do not do that proskune

Oh only God and yet Jesus is proskune Oh in the Book of Revelation does that matter think it does think it does then you say and you have no basis sir for saying this in other words with a little translational trickery no this is just translating according to context you just don't know how to do it a fundamental tenet of Christianity the

Jesus is God was reinforced in the Bible even in places where directly contradicts the rest of verse where where where's the directly contradict the rest of verse you didn't bother to say yes you forgot maybe had a word limitation

I don't know I've written lots of articles I know what word limitations are but wasn't translational trickery sir wasn't translational trickery that kind of manipulation occurs many times in Philippians the

King James Version translates some words to designate Jesus as being in the form of God more faith a you sir

Harmon Christy the Greek word for form consuming Jesus was in the image of God no more

Faye he took on the more Faye Doolou a form of a servant which at whatever that means you have to be consistent

I have an entire chapter on the Carmen Christie in the

Forgotten Trinity invite you to read it take a look at it but the publishers of some Bibles what has to do with publishers has to translators translators are doing their best to render the

Greek text they've been given the publishers of some Bibles decide to insert their beliefs into translations that had nothing to do with the

Greek the Living Bible which is a paraphrase for example says Jesus was God even though modern translators pretty much just invented the words

I'm sorry sir I see no evidence here that you have any earthly idea what's actually going on the

Carmen Christie you don't what is Isis a you mean what does harp hog must mean how is this functioning in Paul's in Paul's exhortation to the

Philippians how is this an example of humility what's top pine up for Sunay mean you don't know and people are sitting you shouldn't be picking on him because he doesn't know then don't write a major cover article for a major national publication if you don't know get somebody who does is that not fair is that not fair have

I not been fair here have I not been fair I have been I have been sorry a lot of us

Christians is just sick and tired of the mainstream media bashing us every Christmas writing this kind of stuff and not even listening to the other side or being accurate what's being said it's tiring and we're standing up and challenging it and we're doing it hey we're actually reading what the other side says and responding to it unlike others which raises a big issue for Christians and here we go the

Trinity the beliefs of Jesus and God are the same and with the

Holy Spirit are a single entity that's what I said what mr.

Eichenwald you don't know what the Trinity is you don't know what Nicea said you don't know what Constantinople said you don't know what the doctrine the

Trinity is sorry that you don't but you're confused the reality is

I can teach the junior high schoolers at my church what the doctrine the

Trinity is with clarity and I have the doctrine the

Trinity is that within the one being that is God there eternally exists three co -equal and co -eternal persons the

Father the Son and the Holy Spirit the Father is not the Sun the Sun is not the Spirit the Spirit is not the Father being in person are two different things you and I differentiate between being in person every day you know that a rock has being but it's not personal you know that we are human beings but that we are each individuals so we differentiate between being in person in our everyday language but then the one eternal and unlimited being that is

God there exists three divine persons each one is identified as Yahweh but they're never confused with one another the

Father's not the Son the Sun is not the Spirit that's why what you said about Constantinople is so laughably wrong now is this somehow a mystery are there not numerous books of code to explain this to you there are you ignored them you ignored them is a fundamental yet deeply confusing tenant well it's deeply confusing to do it's not deeply confusing to us so where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the

Greek manuscripts nowhere and that deception lies a story of mass killings deception in the

Greek manuscripts sir which you cannot read and did not bother to look at we can find well you know what you know since since he said that I want to you know mr.

Eichenwald you probably don't want to necessarily see all these things but I think it would be good to show you something and let me let me let me show you in the

Greek manuscripts I'm going to show you a Greek manuscript now unfortunately you're gonna have to trust

I'll translate for you correctly but we like doing this going to the originals here is a

Greek manuscript and this is p72 and I'm gonna put it up here did it did it did it did it did it do

I get to the color LCD and then go back to window and go to keynote you test some documents plus all right here's p72 and this is the end of first Peter over here and the beginning of second

Peter right here and right there we'll blow it up here it's a gravel sharps rule and in this

Greek line you have Jesus being described as our

God there is they you that's a nomen a sacred theos is one the nomen a sacra where you are able to the

Christians for reasons that no one has ever really figured out abbreviated words like God Lord Jesus Spirit so on so forth and they put a line over it so that theta oop salon is the genitive singular form of theos our

God hi so teras and then you have Jesus Christ again this time in in this particular manuscript the nomen a sacra is three letters sometimes it's two letters but you can see the line over top so it's it's nomen a sacra

Jesus Christ and so you have did

I say oops on I'm sorry it's a new see accusative singular our

God and Savior Jesus Christ right there this is from around 175 to 200 in the

Greek manuscripts Jesus described as our God and Savior Jesus Christ how about p66 here is the beginning of gospel

John nrk ain't ha logos chi ha logos ain't prost on they on here is chi theos ain't ha logos logos before the copulative ain't logos after copulate ain't theos does not have an article so therefore you know logos is a subject this is describing the logos as theos as God eternally his nature is

God this is also 175 to 200 p66 here's p75 same phraseology used there at John 1 1 here is p46 which

I have seen in Dublin Ireland in the Chester be the library this is beginning of Philippians right here and I have seen the very page it has the

Carmen Christie on it also 175 to 200 there you've got the deity of Christ right there in the

Greek manuscripts sir right there Matthew 20 Matthew 28 right there the script

John 17 is right there John 20 28 is right there it's in the Greek manuscripts sir you are in error and you call this a deception leading to the story of mass killings as a theologian as one who studied textual criticism as a and as one who's taught church history your assertions are childish and absurd childish and absurd it is unfair it is biased for you to put this kind of material before the public it's reckless absolutely reckless to make this kind of accusation absolutely reckless we are tired of it we forgive you for it and we would like you to come to know the truth about what the

New Testament says but we will respond to your accusations and we will correct your accusations now

I forgot when we got things started mainly because I was so looking forward to having a little co -host with me there for a few moments there's the there's the phones oh look at that she left her water here well grandpa will take that home it is 402 p .m.

in in the beautiful desert southwest and I'm going to be going another 28 minutes in responding to this if I do not get it done in time

I will continue this next week and we'll finish the refutation of the entirety of this but I am asking

Kurt Eichenwald we've got a line ringing no I got to test the phones here make sure that okay all right yep they're working yeah

I was thinking maybe that was really thanks a lot my hopes got real high there for a second okay hang up on that line make sure we have numerous lines available the toll -free number we'd want you to call the toll -free number don't want this to cost you anything 877 -753 -3341 877 -753 -3341

I'm only from looking here 45 % of the way through but I have already documented numerous errors on your part numerous errors on your part and I have done so fairly

I've read your actual words I've provided documentation I provide you the original languages

I provide you with textual information so mr.

Eichenwald phones are open for you and you alone nobody else and we'll keep an eye on them and if you want to join us we'd like to talk about this we'd like to know why the week before Christmas you would write and publish this kind of attack upon the

Christian faith I know you say it's not an attack let's we can talk about that but we're open phones phones are open

I will continue under the sociopath

Emperor talking about Constantine we have this assertion in fact

Christians are believed to have massacred more followers of Jesus than any other group or nation well of course we'd want to discuss who followers of Jesus are

I do not believe that anyone who denies the deity of Christ or the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a follower of Christ I do not believe

Gnostics who believe the God the Old Testament was an evil God the Jews didn't have a physical body we're

Christians you seem to think that they are so you have an incredibly wide definition of what

Christian is that you know I bet you anything you do not have an incredibly wide definition of what a

Muslim is do you know no no no I'll bet you've got a real narrow one there anyway if you're talking about Roman Catholics murdering

Waldensians or something but in comparison to what's happened in China North Korea under communism you've got to be kidding me you've got to be kidding me ridiculous no those who believe in the

Trinity butchered Christians who didn't hmm groups who believe Jesus was two entities

God and man killed those who thought Jesus was merely flesh and blood you are so confused about this I can't even figure out what you're talking about because the

Orthodox view of Jesus is that he is 100 % God 100 % man and it is flesh and blood he was truly man so you've got the same people killing themselves just really hard to take seriously some felt certain

God inspired Old Testament scriptures others were convinced they were the product of a different evil God yeah those are called Gnostics they're not

Christians that's a different religion completely different worldview some believe the crucifixion brought salvation to humankind others insisted it didn't such as and still others believe

Jesus wasn't crucified such as the later Gnostics who didn't believe yet a physical body right this is somehow relevant to something since there's warnings against these folks in the

New Testament itself I guess we don't get to define what Christianity is no one could know that's this anyways indeed for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus groups adopted radically conflicting writings about the details of his life and the meaning of his ministry and murdered those who disagreed really for many centuries

Christianity was first a battle of books than a battle of blood the reason a large part was there was no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a

Christian so most sects had their own Gospels this is the Bauer hypothesis and it is rocked okay it has been torn apart at its very foundation sir but you don't know that because you are a liberal fundamentalist and a liberal fundamentalist believes what he's taught and when the liberals tell you that Christianity like you say here was a was just a mass of confusion you believe it but their entire books demonstrate that Bauer's hypothesis was was full of holes you won't even read a million will you mr.

Eichenwald I gave you the reference I challenge you sir I challenge you even if you don't call in today

I challenge you read the heresy of orthodoxy edited by dr.

Michael Kruger and by Andreas Kostenberger read it read it with an open mind check the references out they actually give footnotes and they take the

Bauer hypothesis apart you repeat it as if it's actual factual history did you get that from Schaff maybe which which church histories have you read sir 877 -753 -3341 877 -753 -3341 phone lines open for Kurt Eichenwald only you say there was the

Gospel of Mary Magdalene the Gospel of Simon Peter the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Barnabas yeah

Gnostic Gospels from the second to fourth centuries having absolutely positively nothing to do with the

Christianity that derives from Second Temple Judaism in Jerusalem in the first century does it one sect of Christianity the

Gnostics believe that the disciple Thomas was not only Jesus twin brother but also the founder of churches across Asia Christianity was in chaos in its early days with some sects declaring the others heretics nice story would love to see you prove it 877 -753 -3341 because see

I actually have read the heresy of orthodoxy and so I can sort of challenge you to maybe consider some of the foundational elements of this but I understand why you might not want to try to defend it because you probably didn't know it was the

Bauer hypothesis because as a good liberal you only listen to one side you do exactly what you accuse us of doing and detest so much in these people don't you that's what must be so uncomfortable for you is that you're the mirror image of the people you detest you say they haven't looked at these things neither of you neither of you

Wow that's uncomfortable isn't it yeah it is you to do and then in the early 300s

Emperor Constantine of Rome declared he had become follower of Jesus ending his Empire's persecution of Christians and set out to reconcile the disputes among the sects he didn't set out to do that there is 13 years 12 years that passed between the cessation of well at least in the part of the

Roman Empire under Constantine's control the cessation of persecution as Christians Christians becoming religio licita the edicts toleration and the

Council of Nicaea and there was probably a good 10 years in there where Constantine wasn't even aware of any of the divisions that were taking place because of Arius rise in Alexandria again

I'm sorry sir but your grasp of church history is extremely tentative extremely tentative then you said this and I would love to see you your foundation of this yet he also

Constantine changed the course of Christian history ultimately influencing which books made in the New Testament how how and when document it prove it show me

I want to see it I want to see where Constantine had anything to do whatsoever with the canon

New Testament that's one I know I'm not getting any response to because I know he didn't

I know it's extremely popular for internet articles to say it but you see

I sort of like original sources you know I'd sort of like to know even in English translation you know could you show me something you

CBS maybe you CBS of Nicomedia maybe something like that that's the stuff that I want to go to and I also happen to have you know the

Greek and Latin sources right here on my computer so if you if you'd like to provide the sources

I'd be interested to see talks a little bit about Nicaea he talks for some reason he's real big into arguing about Sunday do you know what

Korea Khamera means sir when John said he was in the spirit on Korea Khamera what was it

Lord's Day I was Sunday yeah um oh well um many theologians and Christian historians believe that it was at this moment to satisfy

Constantine and his commitment to his Empire's many Sun worshipers that the

Holy Sabbath was moved by one day contradict and clear words of what ultimately became the Bible no we can have a whole discussion about Sunday and Saturday and resurrection and but the reality is historically would you just if you just want the historical stuff you don't want to talk about the theology of Sabbath and stuff like that would you look at DA Carson's book from Lord's Day from Sabbath the

Lord's Day for at least the historical stuff because it's rather obvious you haven't looked at that and while the

Bible mentioned nothing about the day of Jesus's birth the birth of the Sun God was celebrated December 25th in Rome really at that time can you prove it can you prove it oh

I know there's all sorts of stuff on the net but how about going back to the original stuff Mithra all that stuff

I think you can make a pretty strong argument that Christians were talking about December 25th before the pagans were hmm in fact what's more likely that the dying pagan religions were borrowed from by the rising

Christian faith or that the dying pagan religions borrowed from the

Christians most people don't even give a thought most Christians have already given an oh yeah sure

I must have ever looked at it ever looked at it there's some great material on this subject that's what

I was gonna talk about today there's some great material I've talked about before you know the

Eastern Orthodox celebrate January 6th and there's a fascinating article by Roger Beckwith which is not

Frank Beckwith by the way for those of you who might be confused Roger Beckwith where he he goes through the the genealogies and he goes through who would have been serving in the temple which family because we have records to go back to that period before the destruction you know you know 8070 messes everything up but we've got stuff before that and he makes a fascinating case that John the

Baptist's father would have remember what happened we struck struck dumb so on so forth in regards to the birth of John connects that with the relationship between John's birth and Jesus's birth and traces it back and it goes back to guess what early

January fascinating most people never even looked at it not never even get never even given a second thought it's just oh yeah yeah the pagans did all that stuff it's just it's repeated so often that's what concerns me about the internet because nothing ever gets challenged there there's no process of vetting these things and it just gets repeated over notes cut it becomes cut and paste scholarship bad thing bad thing

Christian historians of the 12th century wrote that it was the pagan holiday that led to the designation of that date for Christmas well that's nice I don't care what

Christian historians of 12th century read we need to go earlier now the majority of the time and I see it was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the

Son of God as arias proclaimed or God himself as a church hierarchy maintained the the issue sir 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 the the issue was arias's assertion that there was a time when the

Sun was not so the issue was not that Jesus was not divine arias thought he was divine but that he was divine on a lower level than the father he was hetero uzias of a different substance than the father

Alexander from Alexandria and his deacon

Athanasius who became a bishop after the Council of Nicaea defended homo uzias that he was of the same substance as the father it's a much more nuanced and relevant argument than what you put here and it's because I don't think you understand it you don't understand it wrote an article called what really happened at the

Council of Nicaea it's available online CRI journal Christian Research Journal might help you charts online yards and it might also help you as one other thing the followers of arias marshaled evidence from the letters of Paul and other

Christian writings and the Gospel of Mark speaking the second coming Jesus says but that day and hour knoweth no man know not the angels which are in heaven neither son but the father you don't comment on that you don't comment on the fact that Jesus puts himself above the angels there

I've ever thought about there might be a reason why the son would have a veiling of his knowledge so he can function as the

Messiah certainly as glory was veiled wasn't it didn't think about that because you've never even taken the time to listen to why

Christians believe what they believe maybe you have some bias some some something that happened in your in your past I don't know

Kurt what it is I invite you to get past it I invite you to discover what you do not know it may be absolutely amazing to you it might and by the way those of us who have been defending the

Trinity less than three months ago I stood in the Juma Masjid in Durban South Africa which used to be until just recently the largest mosque in the southern hemisphere of the globe and I defended the deity of Christ against Yusuf Ismail in front of a large audience you can watch it on YouTube we've heard all of this stuff before and we've answered it for centuries why don't you know what our answers are why don't you care to know what our answers are inquiring minds want to know in Paul's first letter to Corinthians he wrote there is but one

God the Father's but one Lord Jesus Christ yeah did you uh my students in Kiev are beating their heads against the table right now because despite the power outages in Kiev while I was there we we spent a lot of time on this one mr.

Eichenwald you seem to have missed the fact what Paul's doing in that text is he's drawing directly from the

Shema of Deuteronomy 6 for do you know what the Shema is Shema Yisrael Yahweh Elohim Yahweh Akkad here

Israel Yahweh is our God Yahweh is one and in Greek that's

Kurios heist they us harass one God heist a us and he's talking about the fact there that he is one

Lord he uses Kurios and chaos he breaks them up and he uses this is the expansion of the

Shema in light of the incarnation so that you have God the Father being identified as chaos

Elohim the son is identifies Kurios which is Yahweh and then the father for whom are all things and we in him the son through whom are all things and we through him you skip that part don't even recognize that the verse you're quoting actually presents the deity of Christ in its fullness if you just allow the background to be there or know what the background is did you know that no you didn't know that because you haven't listened to the other side in his letter to Timothy Paul wrote for there is one

God one meter between God and men the man Christ Jesus which of course we believe he is the man

Christ Jesus he is the God man we believe he's a man you're arguing like him like a Muslim here like ignorant

Muslim it doesn't know what we actually believe not like the Muslims who actually do know what we believe for some reason you didn't give any of the other side you've probably not read

Athanasius you're not you're not just not listen to the other side Paul's writing to consistent his reference to God as one being and Jesus as his son same with the

Gospel of Matthew where Peter tells Jesus that he is the son of living God and Jesus responds of flesh and blood is not revealed unto thee my father which is in heaven

Jesus even called out to God as his father as he was dying on the cross yes every Trinitarian believes all those things even your objections demonstrate your ignorance of the

Trinity your objections actually end up proving what we believe you don't even understand what the

Aryans were arguing sir you don't know why did you understand our frustration these things are the heart of what

I believe and you have now put out in print in Newsweek your ignorance of these things as if they're objections to what

I believe do I not have a reason to find that offensive sir to challenge these things but Constantine side with those who believe

Jesus was both God and man forgot their arguments huh so a statement of belief called the

Nicene Creed was composed to proclaim that I guess you forgot that the vote was 316 to 2 those who refuse to sign the statement were banished yes they were others were slaughtered not then when did that happen see here's where your ignorance of church history is astounding what happened for the next 30 years sir about 40 years do you know probably not it's it's called the

Aryan resurgence and at one point Athanasius that the the terminology was used was

Athanasius contramundum Athanasius against the world five times Athanasius was kicked out of his church by Roman soldiers for believing what what the

Council of Nicaea said do you know what happened at a remnant you know what you know what that Council said contradicted

Nicaea and people were banished and in fact died for believing in Nicene Orthodoxy during that period of time hmm you forgot to mention that you made it sound like Rome was behind all of this but Rome was behind attacking

Nicene Orthodoxy for the next 40 year why did you forget that mr.

Eichenwald or more honestly eight seven seven seven five three three three four one could you call in and tell us did you even know about that did the secondary tertiary sources that you have read on this subject not the original sources did they tell you about the

Aryan resurgence and the Aryan ascendancy did they tell you about Jerome in the next century saying that the world woke up to and she was shocked to find itself

Aryan did they tell you about that or did they skip over that that's my question eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we still have a few minutes we'd go longer if you'd like to call if you've been busy doing

Christmas shopping whatever else it might be well uh we could go long we'd go longer if we need to phone rings after they had returned home and were far from Rome some who signed the document later sent letters to Constantine saying they'd only done so out of fear for their lives yeah when the

Aryan ascendancy arose yeah then we have then we have one of the most

I'm sorry absurd statements in the entirety

I've made reference to it before about 50 years later in 83 81 the

Romans held another meeting no the church held another meeting about the Romans this time in Constantinople there a new agreement was reached

Jesus wasn't two he was now three father son and Holy Ghost there is not a recognizable historical or scholarly source on the planet that you can cite that would support that statement

I'm giving you I just made a universal statement universal statements are the most easily refuted so there's your shot mr.

Eichenwald because you see I know what happened the Council of Constantinople and I understand the doctrine of the

Trinity and all Constantinople did was reaffirm

Nicene Orthodoxy and the homo eugene clause that Jesus is fully gone and there was more discussion of the relationship the

Holy Spirit but nowhere nowhere nowhere at the Council of Constantinople was

GS identify as father son and Holy Spirit that is modalism that was rejected that was rejected 200 years earlier so you are wrong you are in error documentably demonstrably will you withdraw that statement man if you had to withdraw every statement we've shown so far it wouldn't be much left but will you

I'd be interested in knowing the Nicene Creed was rewritten and those who refused to sign the statement were banished and others and another wholesale slaughter began document it please this time of those who rejected the

Trinity a concept that is nowhere in the original Greek manuscripts and is often contradicted by it we've already demonstrated that you don't know what it is and that the foundations of it are in the

Greek manuscripts you are in error falsehood upon falsehood upon falsehood a little bit below that some modern

Christians attempt to use the gospel John to justify the Trinity well Athanasius did even though it doesn't explicitly mention it but they are relying on bad translations of the

Greek and sentences inserted by scribes so an arcane holographic analogous impressed on the on kite they are saying how logos it was inserted by scribes show me a manuscript that doesn't have it somewhere that doesn't teach deity of Christ how about Thomas answered and said to him

I could ask mook I have a awesome moon my lord and my god is that inserted someplace want to show me where a manuscript doesn't have it well explain what that means sir you don't know what you're talking about why do you put these words for publication in Newsweek when you don't know what you are talking about I don't understand it

I find it reprehensible and I say shame upon Newsweek shame upon Newsweek for promulgating this kind of foolishness this is not journalism this is anti -christian bigotry nothing nothing

I think that the next line next section would be a good place to start on the next program we've gone 90 minutes we have opened up the phone lines to invite

Kurt Eichenwald to call and to respond to the decimation of his position and that's what we've done that's what we've done that your position has been decimated and there's more to come there's more to come he has chosen not to participate and not to respond but we're not done because this is educational for everyone who we have to respond to this kind of falsehood being thrown against our faith all the time and so while I would love to see

Kurt Eichenwald come to know the truth and to come to realize he has been deceived and is deceiving others the primary reason we do this is to provide to believers in Jesus Christ answers that they can

I mean I bet you there's going to be people at Christmas celebrations we're gonna have this stuff thrown at them and sadly the vast majority of them will not have had access to the information that we've provided in response

Mr. Eichenwald in every place you've been wrong you sir bear the responsibility for those falsehoods it's not like any of this information was hidden if you had wanted to be honest if you had wanted to be fair you could have been you were not you were not and so basically next

Tuesday Lord willing here on the dividing line we will pick up right there and continue our refutation decimation of Kurt Eichenwald's false attack upon the

Christian faith thanks for watching we'll see you next week have a very happy holiday season with your family we'll see you next week