January 19, 2006

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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Isaiah 44 and the Meaning of Yahweh Alone as Creator

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line not sure we'll be taking any calls today. In fact As far as people in general telling us we're not even on the air yet. But hey, we're gonna keep trying and hope that maybe the archival work or something.

I don't know we can Only do we can do. I Given up attempting to figure out when it's going to work and when it's not anymore to be very honest with you anyway started getting some emails last night and Another one this morning that explained what in the world was going on so today it's a whole lot easier to respond to something like this in a Forum like this where I can speak my response than to take all the time to do all the cutting and pasting and put all the material together that is required to Provide a response.

So I'm going to respond to something here at the beginning on the dividing line. Hopefully it'll be useful to a wider audience. Then I instead of continuing with the airmen material and things like that What I wanted to do today was to provide you with a contrast between how we approach Apologetics and how Catholic answers does so I'm gonna I'm gonna try to Sneak all this in as quickly as they possibly can today might might skip the break and we will see.

We'll see how it's going as far as what I'm being told. We're getting two conflicting stories. We think we're streaming and the rest of the world thinks we're not so there's a little alien on a little Spaceships in place that's listening to us.

But other than that There is there's nothing going on, I guess but anyhow, we're just gonna we're gonna do what we can try to do and record it and Go from there best we can we can do someday. We'll have a real ISP and we'll be able to do this without all the all the fun stuff at the beginning anyway, I Was Asked a question email last night.

It didn't make any sense to me at all. I knew there had to be something else going on wasn't given enough context to know what was going on this morning. Jeff Downs Sent me some material that gave me the context of the question.

I had been asked In the evening hours, there is a Jehovah's Witness apologist by the name of George Kaplan who posted a post article something on a Yahoo group and in it there is a quotation from Isaiah 44 24 and Then he makes a comment he says some Trinitarians and there's a reference there to me I'll read that in a moment.

Says some Trinitarians say that the word alone in this verse teaches that Jehovah had no company. That no one was present with God when he created the heavens and the earth. Therefore since the Father created all things through Christ first Corinthians 8 6 John 1 3 Hebrews 1 2.

They conclude this is evidence that Jesus is Jehovah. This would therefore make Jehovah a reference to the triune being the Trinitarians worship. Another more reasonable view holds the context and grammar of Isaiah 44 24 does not require that Jehovah is alone in the sense of without companion.

Then there is a footnote that is Is connected there says that Yahweh alone stretched out the heavens. He needed no help had no company. He alone spread out the earth. James White after quoting as a 44 24 and then it gives the reference to a very old Paper, I think it's still a very useful paper when I certainly stand by that.

I wrote in seminary on Isaiah chapters 40 through 45 basically and That's still on our website. It's just Isaiah 44 40 4045 that HTML a man dot org you can find it fairly easily off of the main index there.

And then he says in the Jehovah's Witness view. This means the first angel was present with God when the heavens and earth were created. That would be of course Jesus ie Michael contradicting God's testimony above that he was alone when he stretched out the heavens and that he created the earth by myself that's a odd way of putting it almost sounds to me as if There is something being said There that I don't see, you know, and I'm always sent this much of it so I can't give it the rest of it, but almost sounds like he's admitting that his Implicit, you know theism is contradictory to Isaiah chapter 44, but in essence I was being asked to Answer, you know what this man was saying in his use of my citation looking at the specific Text on the website.

I did cite from Isaiah chapter 44 verses 24 through 26. This is toward the end. I'd say at least three quarters away through the paper and so I didn't expand on too much stuff because by this point we had already established the various terms and categories that are being used by Isaiah to demonstrate the fact there's only one true God and So I said the intensely personal relationship and let's I'm assuming everybody is looking at Isaiah 44 24.

You may not be in a position where you can let me read verses 24 to 26. This is what Yahweh says your Redeemer who formed you in the womb? I am Yahweh who has made all things who alone stretched out the heavens who spread out the earth by myself.

Who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it to nonsense? Who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills predictions of his messengers?

So I commented on this the intensely personal relationship of Yahweh to Israel seen before is here expressed in familiar language. Here Yahweh claims to be the very one who formed Israel in the womb. Here is creation par excellence.

The now customary catalog of attributes is then introduced and what I mean by that of course is I had been dealing with this in the previous chapters of Isaiah as if Repetition will cause our dull minds to fully grasp the significance of it.

The Holy Word tells us again. Tells us that Yahweh is creator. Yahweh made all things. But the Lord goes beyond this to make it so emphatic as to establish the fact forever. Yahweh alone Stretched out the heavens.

He needed no help had no company. He alone spread out the earth. If Yahweh did all this then where could though these other gods live? They would have to partake of the created order themselves and hence to be subject to Yahweh.

No stone is left unturned in God's quest to express the simple fact there is no other God anywhere Beside him. And then I went on from there to discuss the application of this in divine providence etc. Etc.

Now when we look at Isaiah 44 24 and my whole point was then and and Continues to to be to this day. The issue is not of course where the creation of angelic beings precedes the creation of the physical universe or earth in particular in some sort of Ordo Criatio and as soon as I saw the first email last night my I Immediately thought you know given who sent this This this must be some question about Jehovah's Witnesses trying to do something with this text and of course I ended up being correct about that.

And they like to try to create all sorts of scenarios in regards to the order of creation. And what was made first and try to fit certain passages into this element of creation or that element of creation.

There is no there is no Ordo Criatio being discussed in Isaiah chapter 40 44. That's not the point. That's not that's not even the issue here. And I as I you just heard me read it did not even make the application that is implicitly Attributed to me by the Jehovah's Witness George Kaplan in his citation.

That's not what the text is about. It's not talking about well What did he create first and that is he does he create angels first and then the then the physical creation? So there are angels there. So he's not alone the point of the trial of the false gods from Isaiah 40 through 48 is the same thing.

The point is that God and God alone is the creator of all things and remember and this is what is missing in a lot of a lot of background information for a lot of people looking at the Text today, and we'll see how this applies in just a moment as well in another context and that is What was the apologetic need of God's people this particular point in time what were the religions around Israel like what were they saying?

Well, if you look at the religions around Israel You discover that the issue of creation was a real problem for them because they all have local gods. And so that they could not have a God. That was sufficient in of himself to ground creation in.

They did not have a God that was big enough in essence to explain the existence of creation and so they were dealing apologetically with people who would believe that creation was a was was something that you know one God split another God in half and creation came out of the Split body and and these kinds of myths and legends and things like that and monotheism sounds very very odd in that type of a of a context and Has to survive certain attacks upon its character.

And so the point is Yahweh is your chair. He is creator. He is the one who has made all Things. It wasn't that there was anything unusual about someone saying that a God would create things. The point was that when you had gods that were only gods within a particular Geographical area the idea that they created all things was absolutely amazing was it was it was a tremendous assertion and this is what God is proving in Trying these idols and in demonstrating their their their false gods is look you didn't even create all things.

You don't have knowledge of the future. You don't have knowledge of the past and why things took place. You by that demonstrate that you're not true gods. So the point of Isaiah is the Solitariness of Yahweh as creator as your chair.

Creation is a unique divine capacity. This is a statement of absolute monotheism it is the it is the ground of God's knowledge of future events and Purpose and past events remember that's one of the big problems with open theism that's why I say open theists worship a a false God they they worship a an idol is because one of the Arguments that God makes in the trial of false gods and Isaiah 40 to 48 is that idols cannot tell you what's going to happen The future neither can the God of open theists.

Therefore he becomes the same kind of idol that Isaiah warned us against a long long long ago. It's amazing how things keep coming back, unfortunately this becomes the ground the fact that God is the creator of all things becomes the ground of his knowledge of future events and the fact that even Challenges the idols tell us what happened in the past and why it happened a bunch of you evangelicals who have Non-reformed views of God's knowledge.

You have a problem with that one. It's also the foundation of the certainty of his promises to Israel and indeed to all who follow him in faith this very day and. So it's a vitally important assertion.

But it's not addressing the issue that is being raised here as to some Creation or to creatio some order of creation as to whether well did he create angels first? And so then he there there were other things.

No, there's no other gods. There are no other creators. He is alone as Creator that's the point and to try to ask the text to address other issues is a classic. Example in is a Jesus now. Is this text relevant to the Trinity?

Well, I would certainly think that it is. I've used this text many many times for example with Mormons to demonstrate that their polytheism is contradicted by Isaiah 44 24 because in Mormonism you have Elohim sending down Jehovah and Michael to organize the earth.

Well, that doesn't fit with Isaiah 44 24. It simply doesn't doesn't make any sense in that context but Leaving that form of polytheism aside and looking at the he no theism that form of polytheism amongst Jehovah's Witnesses today.

Is it still relevant? I think that it is. I would not attempt to make the proof that was alleged in the footnote. But what I would say is what is said of Jesus Christ as creator in the New Testament is simply and totally inconceivable in light of Isaiah 44 24 and the entire testimony to monotheism and found in the Old Testament.

Unless you're willing to throw that monotheism out and embrace some form of polytheism he no theism as Greg Stafford and other people like him have in essence done and then Do what you have to do to the text in the New Testament to Put Jesus on a lower level.

Do what you do in Colossians chapter 1 turn. Turn the text on its head turn something into a part of genitive. Say Jesus only create all other things and in so doing hand Paul's entire argument over to his opponents.

I'll never forget when Jehovah's Witness apologist by the name of Martin Smart came into our Chat channel and and want to start arguing about that text. And so I asked him to do what anyone should be able to do.

I said so tell us about proto Gnosticism and the errors that Paul was responding to that were coming into the church at Colossi before we start arguing about Protodoc Oss and firstborn and part of genitives and things like that in Colossians chapter 1.

Let's let's talk about the background. Let's see if you've done your homework, and he had no idea what the world's talking about. Well, let's just talk about no no no no if you're going to interpret this text.

Then you need to interpret this text in an honest fashion. And if you do so in such a way as to turn it on its head and make Paul argue against Paul make Paul Join his opponents and destroy his own apologetic.

Well you probably missed something somewhere along the lines. You know and that's what you have to do at Colossians chapter 1. That's what you have to do it at Hebrews chapter 1 all these various passages that I've addressed in in the Forgotten Trinity and books like that and in the debates We've had and things like that so when you look at the assertions concerning who Christ is and his role as creator in the New Testament and Then compare that with Isaiah chapter 44 and the strict monotheism of that there you go.

There's There's the context of what ends up coming out and that and that's where the connection comes in and that's where it's relevant to the Doctrine of the Trinity, so there's my response to the utilization of my my words.

Not completely. You know I think the sentence afterwards probably should have been included just simply to give the full meaning of what I was saying. But there's the response that that way I will be able to Help those individuals who would like to know what in the world I was I would like to I was I would say to in that context anyway.

Catholic Apologetics and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

All right, well 45 minutes that truth. Well. We'll see if we can do this here some of you noticed on my blog that I Mentioned a new book put out by Catholic answers the staff of Catholic answers called the essential Catholic survival guide it is in essence various articles from this rock magazine.

It looks quite beefy 533 Numerated pages all sorts of different topics, but as I mentioned on the blog What is really odd as as I can see it is the fact. I don't see growth and development in the apologetics of Catholic answers.

I just I just don't see it it they just keep repeating the same things over and over and Over and over again, and I I just I I I can't conceive of that. I don't understand how that works. I Don't understand how someone could not have a desire to Improve their presentation the light of the best that can be put out against it.

Maybe they just assume there's no one who's responding them. I don't know what I'm going to do to do is attempt to quickly read Chapter 14 this book an entire chapter for you. I want you to listen to this this is the chapter and called brethren of the Lord and I'm going to contrast it by playing my opening statement against Jerry Matta ticks from Salt Lake City on the subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary which addresses the exact same issue and Remember that this debate took place well before this book came out.

There was nothing new in what I was saying that Eric's Fenton hadn't said in his books. So this material was available to Catholic answers if they had but listened. Do they respond to any of it? Do they provide any type of compelling response?

Well, let's find out chapter 14 brethren of the Lord when Catholics call Mary the Blessed Virgin. They mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as a virgin They mean she was a virgin only until Jesus birth.

They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom scripture refers to as the brethren of the Lord. The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms brethren brother and sister. There are about ten instances in a New Testament where brothers and sisters the Lord are mentioned and they are listed here.

Don't have time to go through them when trying to understand these verses know that the term brother Greek Adel Foss Has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half brother.

The same goes for sister Adel Faye and the plural form brothers Adel Foy. The Old Testament shows that the word for brother had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended.

Male relatives from who you were ascended are known as fathers and who are not descended from you your male descendants regardless of the number of generations removed are your sons as. Well as kinsmen such as cousins those who are members the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood and even friends or mere political allies.

Okay Lot for example is called Abraham's brother Genesis 14 14 even though being the son of Heron Abraham's brother. He was actually Abraham's nephew. Similarly Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban.

Kish and Eliezer are the sons of Molly. Kish had sons of his own. But Eliezer had no sons only daughters who married their brother in the sons of Kish these brethren were really their cousins. The terms for brothers relative brother and sister did not refer only to close relatives.

Sometimes they meant kinsmen as in reference to the 42 brethren of King Azariah. Under the subtitle no word for cousin because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic the language spoken by Christ and his disciples had a special word meaning Cousin.

Speakers of those languages could use either the word for brother or a circumlocution such as the son of my uncle. But circumlocutions are clumsy. So the Jews often used the word for brother. The writers of New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of brothers to mean both cousins and sons of the same father.

Plus other relatives and other and even non relatives when they wrote in Greek. They did the same thing the translators the Septuagint did. The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. It was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ's birth and was the version of the Bible from which most the Old Testament quotations found the New Testament are taken in.

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as Adolfos. Which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning of the English brother that the English brother has. Unlike Hebrew Aramaic Greek has a separate word for cousin an Epsios.

But the translators the Septuagint used Adolfos even for true cousins. You might say that they transliterate instead of translated importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for brother and did not use Adolfos in one place.

For sons of the same parents and an Epsios and another for cousins. This same usage was employed by the writers of New Testament and passed in the English translations of the Bible. To determine what brethren or brother or sister means in any one verse we have to look at the context.

Please note that When we do that we see the insuperable problems arise. We assume that Mary had children other than Jesus when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son.

She asked how can this be since I have no husband Luke 134? From the church's earliest days as the father's interpreted this Bible passage Mary's question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of Lifelong virginity even in marriage.

I just know there are no references here because that's simply not true. But anyways, this was not common. But neither was it unheard of. If she had not taken such a vow the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies were made. Otherwise, she wouldn't have asked the questions. She did if she had anticipated having children the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity. She would have she would hardly have to ask how she was to have a child.

Since conceiving a child in the normal way would be expected by a newlywed wife her question would make sense only if there is an apparent but not a real conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and accepting the and exceeding the angels request.

A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any other children other than Jesus. When Jesus was Found in the temple at age 12 the context suggests. He was the only son of Mary and Joseph.

There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and the people of Nazareth referred to him as the son of Mary not a son of Mary. In Fact others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons.

Not even when they are called Jesus brethren if they were in fact her sons. This would be strange usage. Also the attitude taken by the brethren of the Lord implies that they were They that they are his elders in ancient and particularly in Eastern societies.

Remember Palestine is in Asia older sons gave advice to younger but younger seldom gave advice to older. It was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus brethren saying to him in Galilee. The Galilee has no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself.

John 7 3 through 4. Another time they sought to restrain him for his own benefit and when his family heard it They went to seize him for people were saying he is beside himself mark 321. This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the brethren were older than Jesus.

But that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers since Jesus was Mary's firstborn son. Consider what happened before the cross when he was dying. Jesus entrusted his mother to the Apostle John.

The Gospels mentioned four of his brethren James Joseph Simon and Judas. Hard to imagine why Jesus would have Disregard family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Under fundamentalist arguments. Fundamentalists insist the brethren the Lord must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 125. And he did not know her until Until Greek house also translated into English as till she brought forth her firstborn son.

They first argued that the natural inference from till is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife in the usual sense. And had several children. Otherwise, why would you be called firstborn?

Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a second born perhaps a third born and so on. But they are using narrow mod the. They are using a narrow modern meaning of until instead of the meaning that it had when the Bible was written in the Bible.

It means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point. It does not imply that the action did happen later. Which is the modern sense the term if in fact if the modern sense is forced in the Bible some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line. We call the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death. I can say I'm a 623 or we do assume she had children after her death by the way, just quickly. This is this again.

I heard them using this argumentation in the late 1980s. Most of you already know the tremendous amount of work that Eric Svensson's done on this not a single Reference to it not even an attempt to even to even try to respond to it.

Just keep repeating what you said 25 years ago and hope no one notices that you're way out of line. Anyways continuing here because I've still got three pages to read and and it's already for 24. So we may go a little bit long.

There's also the burial of Moses the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave until this present day. But we know that no one has known since that day either. The examples could be multiplied.

But you get the idea nothing can be proved from the use of the word till in Matthew 125. I just note in passing not any of those were hellos who. But hey, you know I've actually kept up with what's going on and evidently Catholic answers doesn't recent translations give a better sense of the verse.

He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son. New American Bible. He had not known her when she bore a son. Knox. Yeah, those are real good translations. Fundamentalists claim Jesus could be Mary's firstborn.

It could not be Mary's firstborn unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance the way the ancient Jews used the term for them. It meant the child that opened the womb under the Mosaic law was the firstborn son that was to be sanctified.

Did this mean that the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the firstborn. Hardly? The first male child of a marriage was termed the firstborn even if he turned out to be the only child of marriage.

There's no question about that. And of course, no one seriously is using that argument. Anyhow under the Holy Family fundamentalists say. It would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter marriage and remain celibate.

They call such marriages unnatural arrangements. Certainly they were unusual but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one's family and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin. Give birth to a child.

The Holy Family was not an average family nor should we expect its members to act as members of an average of family would. The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family set aside for the nurturing the Son of God.

No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary's perpetual Virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. It's there's a controversy between Jerome and Helvidius writing around 380.

So we're talking 350 years after the Christ event. Helvidius first brought up the notion the brothers Lord were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus's birth. I think they're trying to actually assert there.

But that was the first person who'd ever thought of this. Which is sort of silly but anyway the great scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment Helvidius's remarks because they were a novel wicked and a daring affront to the Faith of the whole world at length though Jerome's friends convinced him to write a reply.

Which turned out to be his tree is called on the perpetual virginity the blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above but earlier Christian writings such as Ignatius Polycarp Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.

Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until recent times. So if it is established the brethren Lord were not Jesus's brothers or half-brothers to Mary.

Who were they prior to the time Jerome. The standard theory was they were Jesus's brothers who were sons of Joseph though? Not of Mary according to this view. Joseph was a widower at the time. He married Mary.

He had children from his first marriage who would be older than Jesus explaining their attitude toward him. This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One one work known as the protean jelly of James 81 25 records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband and protector of Mary who was a virgin consecrated to.

When he was chosen Joseph objected I have children. I am an old man, and she is a young girl by the way. That's a proto Gnostic work, but hey just because everything Rome teaches about Mary came from the Gnostics.

We shouldn't really mention that in passing anyways today. The most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus's cousins of the four brethren who are named in the Gospels conserve the sake of Argument only James.

Similar reasoning can be used for the three. We know that James the younger mother the James the Younger's mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women staying beneath the cross. There were also many women there among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

There were also women looking on from afar among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joseph and Salome mark 1540. Then look at what John says. I'm gonna skip this because it's I actually get into it in the in the presentation.

So it's probably James the Younger is the son of Mary and Clopas the second century historian Hegesippus Explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph the foster father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus who was Joseph's putative son.

This identification of the brethren Lord is Jesus's first cousins is open the legitimate question. They might even be relatives more distantly removed but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence or a lack of it in this Case notice the assertion here lack of biblical evidence says nothing at all about the main point.

Which is that the Bible? Demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary's children. Now if you missed where the Bible demonstrated that don't feel badly. So did I? So there's the presentation now again.

Nothing new there. This book just came out. Here's an opportunity for Catholic answers the leading Roman Catholic apologetics organization in the United States. To give the death blow to all the arguments that have been presented by Eriks Fenson and myself and Bill Webster.

It doesn't even sound like they know about them. They don't care. It's like hey, you know the people are sending us money. They're happy with what we're doing. We're just gonna work this stick with what works, and I I don't understand.

I can't even begin to conceive that so there's their presentation. There's there's the chapter from the essential Catholic survival guide. Let's contrast that now and by the way ye of the. Of the stuff on the other side of the wall here for some reason even though I took this right off of what we made the CD on it sounds to me.

Really really really really really loud it sounds almost distorted In in how it sounds so be prepared to Crank her down over there. Let's listen to. I believe I had about 25 minutes, maybe we'll just sneak it in here my opening presentation this was from a couple years ago in Salt Lake City between myself and Jerry matic's on the subject of The Immaculate Conception.

Not the Immaculate Conception the perpetual here we get it right the perpetual virginity of Mary. Discussing the issue of auto Fossado Faye the natural use of language etc. Etc again this all information available Prior to the production of this book.

Let's see how much of it the book actually attempted to respond to. Thank you very much for being here this evening. For many who are Unfamiliar with the dogmatic teachings the Roman Catholic Church our debate this evening may seem like a complete waste of valuable time.

Why not debate the gospel something really important? But it is the gospel that brings me here this evening for the gospel is communicated to us in God's perfect word the scriptures. Gospel is perverted when the supremacy of the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith is denied.

And I believe this is what Rome does in this debate. We will see what happens when the rightful supremacy of the scriptures is Replaced with the ultimate authority of the bishop of Rome. You see my opponent this evening has said in open debate in the past that another of the Marian dogmas One with even less historical or biblical defense that is the bodily assumption of Mary is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

If he is consistent He will likewise confess that the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is likewise a day feed a dogma a part of the gospel. And so we are in effect discussing the gospel this evening for by demonstrating what happens when you deny Sola-scriptura, we will be continuing the ongoing and necessary work of vindicating the true source of the gospel against those who seek to pervert it.

Since we may have a number of people with us this evening who are neither Catholic nor Protestant allow me to briefly note the center of the conflict. The vast majority of conservative Evangelicals believe the Blessed Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ was a virgin when she conceived Carried and delivered the child Jesus.

By this we mean no human agency was involved in the conception of Christ. Here all sides this evening agree and denying the consistent teaching of the general authorities of the LDS Church wherein they teach that Christ was immortal because he had an immortal father Elohim who begat Christ in the way we were begotten by our mortal fathers.