August 19, 2003

The Dividing Line Introduction and the Debate Context

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And good morning and welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning here in August. It is a wonderful thing because it's only 78 degrees outside here in Phoenix which when it's below 100 at 11 o 'clock in the morning, it is a blessing and It is a beautiful day here in Phoenix, but we have much to do today.

By the way, for those of you wondering I will be playing either sections over pretty much all of my debate with David Bernard. Wasn't a debate. It was a radio program. It was a one-hour radio program.

It was a 33-minute radio program actually yesterday morning. We'll be playing most of that on Thursday evening and doing some other fun stuff. Since that'll be the last dividing line for about a week and a half.

You might want to tune in then but we have much to do today because I am joined by dr. Eric Svendsen today. Okay, we'll turn the sounds off thank you. No. That was somebody in our chat room that I forgot to turn my sounds off and We greet this fellow from from Texas.

He's called cow poet. He's a cowboy poet. That's what he actually does. He travels around and he sings poetry and though I guess you don't sing poetry. But you know what? I mean, and that's how we greet him as we have that we have that sound.

That's just great. Anyway, nothing like starting off on the right foot there. I have ten clips lined up here I started figuring it out. We're gonna have to work quickly to get through all these things but you know both you and I Eric and I thank you for joining me this morning have Have done a number of debates.

I've done 47 of them now and My first debate was with Jerry Matatix in a Catholic Church in Long Beach that was primarily populated by priests and nuns and So I have a feeling that that's a little bit What you walked into.

I want to play a clip from your closing statement. Where this will give you an opportunity to give us some context of when this took place where it took place. I think you got a little extemporaneous audience.

Participation at this particular point and I'm going to be asking you if you have any idea what this lady was yelling out. But let's let's listen to what what happened.

Misrepresenting the Perpetual Virginity Debate

It's an issue of trust. You have to decide tonight whether you are going to continue to trust an institution. That is so far off base that it can't even get it right on this one simple issue. That is so plainly laid out for us in Scripture.

And how many other areas that she misled you. We're all wants us to believe against all the evidence and against the plainly in Scripture against the philological evidence deluxal evidence and the exegetical evidence that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Now I Do you have any idea what she said? I do James. And before I start I just have to make this disclaimer here. Because I really don't feel well prepared to do your show. Asked me why why is that Eric?

Well, I missed a flight yesterday and Was on standby for a midnight flight and I got in a wee hours. I've been running on fumes the past three weeks and had probably about four or five hours. And all your books and all your books Are packed up in boxes and you know are and I've been living off protein bars and cinnamon rolls.

We need to pray for you it Classic. When I was standing there giving that in. It's kind of hard to hear the background noise as I'm almost yelling into the the microphone. But if you listen closely you can hear laughter.

While I'm talking while I'm saying an institution. That's so far off base that it can't even get it right on this one simple issue. Or and then you have this lady at the end that says that yells out. Is this all.

Is that what she was adding what she? said.

Well I'll tell you it must have been interesting out there. It does seem it's primarily with Jerry that I end up in those situations where I am. I mean you asked and there was one Protestant in the in the audience, right?

That's right. That happened to me in Omaha, Nebraska 1992 the the late Greg Bonson was going to be debating Jerry and He got an opportunity to debate someone a homosexuality. So he called me asked if I would go up there and At this Roman Catholic high school, there was one Anglican and do Anglicans count as Protestants anymore.

I'm really not sure hard to tell. Yeah, but he was in the front row and that was it. I mean that that was the extent of it. So.

Where did this take place? It actually took place in San Jose, California at a Lutheran Church of all places and I Had no contact in San Jose and so they promised they were going to send flyers to all the evangelical churches in the area.

They may very well have done that and it's a sad commentary on On the importance of truth in the minds of some evangelicals today. No kidding. Well, it was an amazing debate.

I remember listening to it initially a Number of years ago. In fact the two times I've listened to it. I've always been working out. I'm not sure if that's a good thing to do because it makes me angry.

But this time especially knowing that I'm gonna be debating Jerry and just a little over a month on the very same subject I was listening very closely and One of the things that truly bothers me and I mean on a on a sense of anyone who I think loves truth Cannot help but be bothered.

I have come to the conclusion after at least a dozen debates against Jerry Madetik that he is tremendously gifted at twisting the statements of others into something that you never Intended and then when you face him with that all of a sudden his story changes.

This happened a lot in the debate that you two had and here's here's an example from a little bit later on the debate.

And I'd like to get your comments on it. These are the arguments that Mr. Svensson sees. Refute the virginity of Mary the professor Virginia's Mary. And yet we've seen that Protestants on every single one of these.

Say that they are inconclusive. We saw that that Henry Alford's Greek New Testament. We saw that Bauer Arndt and Gingrich a Protestant lexicon says about the word Soon air come I that coming together doesn't have to have that sexual condition in the papyri of the period.

This is mr. Sussman talk about contemporary accounts. It simply means to marry. You can look that up for yourself in Bauer Arndt and Gingrich.

I have the the photocopy right now that that kind of Argumentation fills everything the Jerry says and you you and a debate only have a few minutes to to respond. It takes 10 seconds to make an error and a minute to correct it.

When you hear him saying these Protestant scholars in essence have dismissed your argumentation What would you have liked to have said at that particular if you could have just stopped him right there turned off his microphone and corrected.

What would you have said to him? Well as you as you aptly point out a couple of weeks ago to mischaracterize my my opening presentation as Saying that the primary meaning of soon air come I his sexual relations Is is he's just lost today at that point and and I should have brought that up in and as you know James as you? are listening to The rebuttal or at the end of the other first ring with your notes and writing down statement you hear a point you write it Down and of course as you're writing you miss certain points that he's making and I didn't hear a lot of these points until I went back and listened to the tape and was Was quite surprised that I believe that soon air come I have is its primary meaning sexual relations.

I Didn't say that what I said was the primary meaning is to come together. But it often has the connotation of sexual relations, and I cite several lexicons that even Cite Matthew 1 18 with that meaning now.

That's not the most bizarre point. The most bizarre point is that he goes on to claim that the primary meaning is to marry Right to come out of the betrothal period into the marriage and of course There is no lexicon that gives that as a primary meaning or even a secondary meaning.

That's quite true. I mean, it's obvious. Here's a man who has his his undergraduate degree was in Greek. I mean he's not in a Non-intelligent person he's a very intelligent person. I've had friends who have spoken with professors that he had at Gordon Conwell at Westminster Seminary.

He wrote tremendous papers. He has the ability to understand and that's why I've come to the firm conclusion That this is not just simply a lack of carefully listening. It is just the opposite of that.

It is very carefully listening and then twisting what is said I mean when when you can make that kind of a statement say well What he said was this when it wasn't what you said and then sneak in this little this little thing toward the end that that It supports my position of this strange Protectorate marriage situation all the rest of stuff when in reality I mean the majority use of sonar kamai is people gathering together in a group for whatever it might be.

You know and then it has specific uses within its semantic domain depending upon the usage of the text. I mean he knows all these things. Yeah, and yet with audiences that cannot hold him to those Those facts he will consistently misrepresent those things.

That's what really really really concerns me, right?

But the other point to mention here is he seems to Come to no advantage for his own position to to make the claim that sonar kamai simply means that to come into the marriage relationship. He could have just as easily and it would have been Probably more to his advantage to point out that sonar kamai has its primary meaning simply to gather together.

And it's a very rare usage when it means to come together in a sexual way, right? Although it does have that usage now. It baffled me that he would. It's it's almost as though and you're right. He has his undergrad in in Greek.

It's it take a simple word such as sonar kamai that you learn in first-year Greek and Misconstrue that word to mean something that you will not find in any of the lexicons.

Well to me, I honestly believe that that that if you listen to Jerry's debates each debate is different depending on what the audience Was. He knew this was a friendly audience. He knew it was an audience that that you could be talking about the most Arcane word in the Greek language or one that is very common like sonar kamai.

They're not going to know the difference between the two therefore. All you have to do is present some sort of argumentations can make your side go. Oh, wow I see he's right about that. Now you specifically raised the the issue of this next question I want to.

I had this may have been one of the situations where as you point out in this clip Jerry raised this alleged citation during his closing statements of a debate many years before this. And you've challenged him on this and as people listen to this clip You're going to challenge him to provide you with documentation at the end.

The first question I want to ask you is did you ever get the documentation promised in the following words?

Challenging the Josephus Citation

If we interpret that phrase in the strict sense which is in Benson wants us to. From we know from your thesis is but the Jewish war that when James brother The Lord was put to death by a mob of the Jews who threw him off a parapet of a temple In the 60s during the revolt against Rome from 66 to 70 AD.

We know that he was an aging man in his 80s. Now you can stop and do the math for yourself. I haven't I I haven't slept for two days because I've been traveling here. But even I can figure out that if James is the brother of the Lord and he was in his 80s when he was put To death in the 60s AD then he had to be a child of Mary Before Mary was even born, but at least he had to be older than Jesus and Therefore Jesus would not be the firstborn.

The math would require you if James is the brother of the Lord and he's in his 80s when he's put to death and Brother the Lord means son of Mary. Then Mary was having children long before she had Jesus and so in what sense is he the firstborn at all and even suspense.

And doesn't believe that he wasn't the firstborn the sense of Mary had children before him because he believes as I asked him that Mary Was a virgin until she gave birth and so after she gave birth to Jesus.

So I think the evidence of history is against her interpreting these brothers of the Lord in that way. Jerry, can you produce that quote from Josephus? What is the citation there? I don't have my copy of the thesis in you because you quoted that in your in your debate with James White too.

And you didn't you didn't quote the citation there. I looked that up and The only citation that Josephus has for James the brother of the Lord is not in Jewish wars as you alluded to in that day. I'm not sure what you said this time.

So in antiquities, it does not mention any age. It does recount the death of James, but there is no age mentioned. Okay mentioned is 89 years old. That just doesn't exist. Well, I'll be willing to stand other one.

I would like to see that. I'm doing it. I'll be willing to retract my statement if we find that it doesn't exist. It's in it's in chapter 20 of antiquities, but nobody has no but nobody has challenged the statement before when it's been made.

So all I'm saying it's I'm being honest. I like to see it. It's what your point would be valid if you said hey James White challenged you on that two years ago. No, you didn't challenge you that you said in your closing statement.

How this is the first time anyone I've ever heard anyone challenge that there is no such statement. I'd like your producer before you go on to your next debate. If I knew if I knew that if I had known you were going to challenge it, I would have had the copy here.

That's all I'm saying. This is a novelty. I've never heard anyone deny that there is such a statement. So I'm willing to do their work. I'm personally inviting you to send me that reference. Very good.

I'm personally responding. Thank you.

Okay, so Eric did you get that in the mail a couple days later. I I have.

Written to Jerry two or three times since that time and to date he has not written me back. I do not have the quote. And of course, I'm not going to get the quote. The quote doesn't exist and He mentioned that I think in your debate and I believe he also mentioned it in a debate that Came between yours and mine.

I think it was Rob's entered debated him. And so I wanted to put a stop to it because when I looked it up, of course It wasn't antiquities not in Jewish wars, but there is no age mentioned.

Well, you know we need to be careful because we might be able to find that citation in the donation of Constantine or the pseudo is a Dorian decretals because you know. There's as long as it's helpful to Mother Church.

We can find someplace and I'm hoping that you will ask him for that. During your debate, I'd really be interested in what he says. I would. I'll try to find a way.

I mean, unfortunately, my dates could be about 25 minutes shorter than ours was so that's that's really makes it very difficult. But it the citations there. It's just it's just packed up in one of those boxes.

You just can't get to it right now. But unfortunately that is the kind of thing because I'm not sure if you're familiar with why this debates taking place now. But last year actually, I think was made the year before Jerry challenged a Reformed Baptist pastor at a very small Church Vernonia, Oregon.

I mean it's it's it's the type of city you go through and if you blink twice you miss a type thing and and he's Challenging this pastor in this long letter to debate this very issue. Oh my goodness. And you know that he's going to use the exact same Arguments and to someone who's not had an opportunity of hearing them and looking these things up.

They can sound very convincing unless you actually, you know. Check the facts and you can't do that on the fly in the middle of a debate. That's right. So it truly is is an amazing thing. Well in the substance of the of the debate itself I think one of the reasons, you know, I've had some people say to me recently.

Why in the world? Would you be debating a subject like the perpetual virginity of Mary did Mary have other children? I mean, come on, aren't there more central issues? Isn't there isn't there something more, you know, can't we talk about the gospel?

Can't we talk about? Authority things like that and not saying that this is as central to you know, eternal life as those things are. This still is an important subject. What what motivated you and then I'm gonna play a clip from where he he talks about the importance of the subject.

But what what motivates you to engage this debate?

Well, one thing that motivated me was I was working on it on my doctoral dissertation and already had firmly in mind A lot of the ideas that I was amazed to find and what scholars are saying even in the Roman Catholic camp.

But the the other issue is this. I know, you know, he didn't like that. Oh, no, he did and that's that's it. That's a that's another point as well because he. He's the as part of his conversion story, which he always gives in every debate.

He tells us how he came to terms with his own so had to join the Roman Catholic Church. But then he fills at liberty to apostasy and all these scholars are modernists. So you can't have a both ways. He's making a judgment.

But I had been working on on the piece about the perpetual Virginia Mary in my doctoral during that time and I felt that. Even though this is not a central issue. And I even bring this up toward the close of debate that it doesn't matter to me if Mary remained a virgin.

You know, that's her choice. But the point is the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatically defined this this is one of those infallible dogmas that must be believed and. So it becomes incumbent on upon them to show that this is a biblical belief and we turn to the pages of Scripture.

What we find is just the exact opposite. We find that the plain reading of the text yields the conclusion that Mary had other children. There isn't so if we can we can demonstrate that actually destroys the credibility of the claim to infallibility.

So I think that is where the significant life is significance lies for the Protestant, right?

The Bodily Assumption and the Authority of Tradition

And I think that came out in this cut that I'm gonna play now. I I have I. Remember when he and I did our debate on Mary and and that was very different than yours. It was four different topics in one time.

So, you know, it's really hard to do any four of them justice and in the short period of time.

She had exactly it was very very fast moving. But one of the things that he stated was that the bodily assumption Is is an essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ and That we have the exact same basis and the next year We did a debate on solo scriptura and he said that we have the exact same basis for knowing the bodily assumption that we have The resurrection and I think when you when you think through what that means.

It really demonstrates how important this is for a defense of the Christian faith as whole. Here's here's an example.

The perpetual virgin Mary is a Historical fact in that in that. That is why that is the only reason why the Catholic Church teaches it. Not because it's a nice Sounding theory not because it seems to buttress or or buck up other ideas about Mary.

It is rooted in space-time history. It is a fact like the fact that God created the world. It is a fact like the fact that God destroyed the world with the flood in the time of Noah. It is a fact like the fact that God part of the Red Sea In the time of the Exodus so that he kept Shadrach Meshach and Abednego Supernaturally preserved in the fiery furnace.

Like the fact that God became a man born as a baby in Bethlehem. But the fact that he died upon the cross for our sins. Like the fact that he rose again three days later. Like the fact that he ascended back to the right hand of the father.

It is a fact of history to which scripture testifies and the constant teaching of the church. Now there you have.

The cross the Resurrection being paralleled with the fact of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Absolutely that that's that to me is is what illustrates why this issue must be addressed and it cannot simply be ignored.

But let's face it for the vast majority of Protestants today. Most Protestants don't even know what the perpetual virginity of Mary means. That's right. And they could care less what it means and and they and their responses to it are generally extremely weak and anemic and so I think it is vitally important to address this issue now.

One thing I didn't bring this up. So I before I forget it because I will forget it. One thing that I found interesting it didn't come up in this debate. It will in Salt Lake City in a few weeks and I don't care if Jerry's listening this or not.

He can you know, what can you do? There's the facts are facts, but There wasn't any discussion of the first Discovery or the first Documented reference to this concept in church history. I found that interesting.

There was discussions of people not believing it and you raised the issue of Gnosticism, but one thing I'm certainly going to make as a Major portion of my presentation is that the first as with so many of these Marian doctrines as you know.

The first place we find them is not within quote-unquote Orthodox Christianity at all. Just as with the bodily assumption found in Pseudo Milito and things like that here. It's in the second century Gnostic Gospels like the ascension of Isaiah that you find the first references to especially the elements of this dogma that Jerry pressed you on which was where he tried to define virgin birth as Somehow Jesus is is born without Violating the physical aspect of Mary's virginity.

So yeah, that that was that's a what did. I've always wanted to ask the question. I will ask the question in a few weeks. So how was Jesus born? Was he not born like the rest of us did he blame out of Mary?

That's an interesting point. In fact, if you read the Gnostic literature of that time in the second century on your get what you're going to find. Is they believe that same thing to that that the Messiah passed through Mary, right?

Without rupturing her hymen, okay, when did Mary lose during the birth of Christ you brought up and. That baffled me a little bit. Although I was aware of the Roman Catholic teaching on that to define virginity lost as.

The point at which you can see or the point at which you give when hymen is ruptured is to me to To really skew the issue. Imagine the case of a young girl climbing a tree and actually falling and impaling herself and Rupturing her rupturing her hymen in the process would anybody in the right mind say that girl is not a virgin anymore right.

And so I had to make it clear to him the point at which I define virginity loss is the point at which a Woman engages in normal intercourse with a man and that that is so obvious that with that.

That's the meaning of the term virgin birth and yet and that's not not the way that he was utilizing it. No, it's not and it just amazed me and one one thing that I've When when he was talking about the birth one thing I want I'm going to press him on is is in Isaiah chapter 9 When it says a son a child is born to us a son is given to us the term the the Hebrew verbal form that is used for born to us is the Standard term for the birth of a child and I'm going to ask him upon What basis does he really stand in saying that wasn't really the birth of a child Jesus just sort of?

Beamed into existence. I mean that's a docetic Gnostic concept. That is not very Gnostic. It is it's just incredible. Well, you know it's fascinating I'm sure I don't know if you caught this the first time through or exactly when you caught it.

But I know that I was in the middle of a of a bicep set When this next statement was made and and it let's give Jerry his due. He is a very good speaker. He speaks somewhat rapidly but he speaks with a tremendous amount of confidence even sadly when he's not telling you the truth and He will just just seamlessly insert these little statements right in the middle of a bunch of truths.

And so that they so that that statement carries with it the weight of what's around it.

Here's a good example. God chose to become a man for a woman to take his flesh as human nature from a woman. And God decreed from all eternity. The most appropriate way to do this was to make her a virgin mother.

So that the uniqueness of the one who is to be both God and man. Two terms that up till then had been incompatible mutually exclusive. This uniqueness was to be mirrored in the woman He was to be born from for she too would now be two things that never before had been simultaneously true of one person virgin and Mother simultaneously and.

Perpetually now simultaneously and Perpetually. Yeah, yeah, he sort of.

Pulled that went in on the coattails of the simultaneous and. And absolutely not even an attempt To provide any kind of foundation for that assertion. It's just it's just. Let's talk about the incarnation.

Let's get everybody agreed. Let's preach a little bit here. Yes, the incarnations. Unique and and the birth of Christ is unique and she's virgin when she conceives and. And then just. Slide it on in there as if it actually has something to do with everything else in the preceding sentence.

And it doesn't. I mean you can't do that without it being on purpose. That is not just simply. Oh, oh, I I didn't think about. I'm sorry. I you know, I guess that you know in a debate. You're supposed to substantiate what you're saying and and things like that.

He doesn't do that.

No, I absolutely agree. I think it was an attempt to to slide in the conclusion into the evidence itself. Well, he does that all the time. Yeah, he thought he has done that several times even in this debate.

Oh, it's and believe me.

Let me see. We've done the mass justification the apocrypha sola scriptura three times the papacy. Believe me. I've seen him the Mary. On almost every subject there is to to debate and it is. It is not just this subject.

It is every single subject the gerrymatics addresses.

Well, I give you an example a good example that and that is in the cross-examination when he was cross-examining me. It was toward the end of his cross-examination. Actually, it was when I was cross-examining him I believe.

And We were we were talking about the the evidence for the word Otto Fey and Otto Foss, right. And I said you have any Evidence that this is used this way there anything in the context that would lead you to believe it should be used this way.

And he says yes the context of how it was interpreted four centuries later. Now if that isn't reaching for the conclusion to justify your evidence, I don't know what is but you see he does.

And in fact, this is something I want to do and I didn't warn you about this but I'm sure you're up to it despite the fact that you're living on coke and have been driving for three days and haven't slept and writing all your notes on a yellow pad at stoplights, but Which if he pulls that in Salt Lake City, I'm gonna I'm gonna get up in the middle of it and say Jerry Be get it be a man.

Stop it. This is number six or so. It's getting really really boring, you know. It's like Carl Keating's look at the person to your right. Look at the person to your left as he has a Bible. He's not a Catholic.

Yeah, I mean he does that everything, you know, give it up come up with some new material something. Oh, please but what I'm gonna ask I want to listen to a cut here and what this this cut is is Discussing this is this is where Jerry started to preach a little bit and he did.

You do that when you're in front of a home audience, and you know it. He started to preach and What he did was in essence. He started to mock your assertion your discussion of house who and and the study that has taken place that you've done in Regards to this particular construction and he expands it way beyond obviously what either You or he would ever understand it to mean but he expands the way out there.

He preaches on it. I want to ask you and I'm sure you've listened to enough of Jerry magic's that you'll be able to pull this off I'd like to roleplay with you after this clip I'm I'm gonna ask you to be Jerry if you can possibly do that.

Okay, and I'm gonna I'm gonna see how you would respond to how I would have responded what he said here. Even though you probably didn't get a chance to let's listen to what he had to say.

Semantic Range and the Hēōs Hōu / Hēōs Debate

If we're gonna come along 2 ,000 years later and say hey, they didn't have the Logos Bible software. So they can't really know What the verse said even those poor slobs 500 years ago Luther and Calvin and Zingali they didn't have the computers.

We've got now. Falls into what CS Lewis a Protestant apologist condemned as the heresy of modern Progression that says only we moderns really understand reality. This is to now make truth held hostage by every new advance in so-called cutting-edge critical scholarship.

We can never know what the Bible teaches them because next year we'll have a new software or a better computer program or some new scholar pushing the envelope even further and daring to to. This is this is not the instinct of the Christian who says what Jesus taught what was true and therapy of Mary what the Apostles?

Taught it's something that Christians can know in every age. This is a tradition that has been passed on down from generation to generation. Shows up in creed after creed council after council Pope after Pope church father for father.

Commentary after commentary. And we don't need this to avail ourselves of pleasure technology to at last ascertain What all these people were confused about in all these previous periods? No, that is not the way truth works.

Now mr. Manateeks you Majored in in Greek in your undergraduate study. Is that correct? That's correct. Are you familiar with what is called Granville Sharpe's rule? I Am familiar with that. How does it apply in this case?

Well Granville Sharpe's rule, of course. You would agree with me that the best translation of Titus 2 13 2nd Peter 1 1 Says that it is our great God and Savior Jesus Christ both terms God and Savior are being applied to the Lord Jesus Christ that these are these are important proof texts the deity of Christ, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree with that. Okay. Now, do you know when Granville Sharpe lived?

I believe he lived in the past couple of centuries. He doesn't live. Oh, I get what you're going.

Well, what about he publishes work around 1798 around in that area? So let me ask you a question. Did Titus 2 13 and 2nd Peter 1 1 as they were written by the inspired authors. Were they testimonies to the deity of Christ in the year 1500.

Yes, but you would never have known that without the teaching magisterium of the 2 ,000 year old church. You understand. Exactly the way to go on this and that's exactly how I should have approached it.

And I kicked myself because I didn't because here's the situation. It is not the case that we are just making new truth as we plot along here. What happens is we read the New Testament and the plain reading of the text of the New Testament Testifies to the fact that Mary had other children.

That is how it is plainly used that's the plain use of the word brother the plain use of the word until it's not until Roman Catholic scholars come along and and they Are trying to uphold their tradition as well.

Look you have to interpret the Bible through our tradition. Well, alright, let's test that tradition. Let's go a little bit deeper to the Greek words and find out what they mean. And when we do that, we find out hey They support what we've always said and that is that it's the plain reading of Scripture that Mary had other children.

So it's not the case that we're simply making up truth or relying on the you know, the most cutting-edge scholarship. In fact, Jerry was freely quoting lexicons and grant and grammar throughout the entire debate.

And so You're absolutely right. There's a huge double standard that is using well.

And the double standard came out in almost every time he attempted to address the text. For example, he would he went after this in America mind if I'm to play his comments of Saner come I hear just a moment.