March 1, 2012

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 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.

Roman Catholicism, Communion, and the Priesthood

Things are just getting stranger and stranger and curiouser and curiouser out there. That's all I can say. What we're gonna do today. I can barely hear myself for some reason. What we're gonna do today is if if callers call in After we get at least I don't know half an hour's worth in at looking at the wall of sermon debate then we'll Cut that off and go to callers.

If not, we'll just to fill our time of that but Before we do that. There is a lot Going on out there. Of course the death of mr. Breitbart was the big story. As soon as I woke up this morning, I will confess I Only was marginally aware of the man.

I do not spend time Reading a lot of that kind of stuff. I I knew who he was. I knew he was involved with Drudge and stuff like that. But that was the big story today and I don't see a whole lot theological there.

I might suggest some Basic health issues that might be worth discussing at that point, but not going there instead. Other than that the the big issue that a number of people have mentioned to me via Twitter and other means is Well from one of the from headline news TV .com one of many many many many many sources.

We read the internet is filled with righteous indignation After reports that a Maryland woman was denied communion at her mother's funeral because she is a lesbian. Former Catholic schoolteacher Barbara Johnson says she wants the Reverend Marcel Guarnizo who is presiding over the service out of pastoral work after he publicly humiliated her in Citing her homosexuality as a reason for denying her the sacrament according to HLN affiliate W USA He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said I can't give you communion because you live with a Woman and the eyes of the church.

That is a sin. She told the Washington Post an Online petition seeks a personal apology to Johnson from Cardinal Donald Wuerl the Archbishop of Washington DC and demands that he oust Guarnizo in a statement obtained by HLN that archdiocese said its policy and determining commuting qualifications is not to publicly reprimand anyone and Etc, etc, etc, and there is a picture associated with this particular Article a couple things first.

I do not believe that Marcel Guarnizo is a Christian priest. Okay, I do not believe there is such thing as a priest in the New Testament outside of Jesus Christ while every believer is A part of a kingdom of priests the idea of the Roman priesthood.

Hey, I'm consistent here I've debated this subject before would debate it again in the future. There is no such thing as a priest according to the establishment of Jesus Christ and the order of his church found in the sacred scriptures themselves and I think that the debate that we did with Mitchell Pacwa I think made that rather clear to be perfectly honest with you and So I do not believe that there is any man Who is who has been ordained by the Roman Church?

Who is an altar Christus another Christ? I don't believe any man has the ability to call Christ out of heaven and Render him present upon the altar and I believe that the mass is something that While I have attended one to observe it and learn I don't think anyone should should ever attend in any other context Because it is a blasphemy against the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Are we clear on that? I actually am a Protestant yes. That's what Protestants have believed in the past many are now very embarrassed by that. But I am NOT. I am significantly more concerned About what God thinks about the subject and the honor of the sacrifice of Christ and I am modern PC sensibilities With that said Okay with that said I cannot believe for a second that any Even semi Orthodox or believing Roman Catholic could possibly support The punishing of this man for refusing to give to an open practicing homosexual the Eucharist for crying out loud I Mean who do these people think they are?

I?

Mean really.

If you don't believe what the Roman Church teaches then don't go to the Roman Church. Who do you think you. I mean these people really believe they have uber rights they have they have more Rights than anybody else.

They are better than we are. They can demand What no one else could possibly demand. It's a part of I think the warping that takes place in the mind of the homosexual. It's a part of the twistedness. You know what Rome teaches on the subject.

Yes, Rome may be inconsistent. I mean there's lots of homosexuals running around in priest habits. Okay, that's a problem, but you know what Rome teaches and according to other reports I read she showed up with her homosexual lover.

I Mean it wasn't like this was a rumor for crying out loud. She showed up with her significant other. Quote-unquote. Whatever that supposed to mean so what do you expect this guy to do and as as strongly as I oppose Roman Catholicism and no one can question my credentials as an opponent of Roman Catholicism, and it's a it's a it's false gospel and all the rest that stuff.

The only thing that could make me Could lower it in my in my perspective was if they gave in on something like this and said oh, we're sorry I Mean is there anybody in the world left with a backbone? You've got people running around you've got Muslims running around murdering other Muslims Because of The burning of corrupted currents in Afghanistan, so they run around and murder fellow Muslims and You have politicians in the United States Stumbling over themselves to go.

We're sorry. So sorry, I just I just want to go would somebody grow a backbone somewhere. It's just amazing to me. It real I just I read stuff like this and go has the world gone completely insane. It's just absolutely amazing to me.

I.

Just.

Sorry.

Deep breath deep breath calm relax drink some propel fitness water do something. No, I I don't know I don't know I.

Mean.

You know, I don't know how much more clearly I could it could have expressed myself. I Fully disagree with the Roman priesthood. I have written on the subject of debate on the subject. But man if you're gonna claim to be that And if Rome's gonna claim we are the infallible Church.

Well, then don't grovel to these people for crying out loud. That's the only thing it could could could put you even lower in my eyes is If you don't it is to teach falsehood and don't then don't even have the guts to stand up for it.

That's I mean I can respect a Believing Roman Catholic. I don't get these liberal Roman Catholics. What is what's that all about? You know, Nancy Pelosi ran around, you know, I'm a Catholic. I stand for everything the church doesn't but I'm okay.

What what is this and I just like to say to every Roman Catholic listening, excuse me. You want to be taken seriously? You want Rome to be taken seriously when they start kicking these people out. Then you will at least be able to say that Rome takes her teachings seriously but as long as these politicians are Allowed to promote abortion and homosexuality and then go and be a good Catholic and get their sacraments stuff like that.

Folks, how can we take you seriously? I mean really honestly. It's just I I Know what would happen to those folks. They're a member of my church because we actually do believe what we say that we believe.

So anyway, I Feel much better now.

We.

Just lost all of the listeners, but I feel much better now. So actually the graph probably doesn't show any problems there at all. But yeah anyways All right, and LaShawn just came in channel two so she'll be tweeting about this and See, I get to say the thing is the way that LaShawn doesn't get to say it because you know, I'm you know, anyway.

All right. Let's get let's get to the Wallace-Ehrman debate. By the way, I just finished recording parts four and five of My response to Sam Gipp. That's it for this this one. I mean his video is only eight minutes long.

I did five. Five responses that were about what I don't know an hour and 15 minutes or something like that. So at least maybe more than that, I don't know but I just finished the last part of my response to that first video because you can tell there's gonna be more and Hey, I said from the start.

Good quality audio not so much video. Very good quality shot. Well. Give them give them props did a good job. Did a good job. No two ways about it. The problem is it's full of abject falsehoods. That's just all there is to it.

So we've got five of them the first three have been posted. I will post the next two on Twitter tonight, and then I will post them over the next couple days on the blog. Especially since I will be headed into Hawaii.

Hilo, Hawaii. Starting on Sunday Sunday Monday Tuesday and Wednesday I'll be speaking in Hilo, Hawaii, and then Friday Saturday and Sunday in Honolulu and. So I'll be over there and that means I don't know what we're gonna do about the dividing line.

We might be able to work something out during the days. It's possible I think they're one or two hours behind California. To two hours behind California's would be three behind us, so we'll see we'll see what works out.

We'll just try to we'll try to we'll try to figure that out and see if we can't work something in. Especially if you know some major thing happens, you know Sam get post some video. Because I couldn't does anyone remember me playing.

Or did I just mention on the air? Because I can't find the sound file and maybe if someone can find it. Someone had tweeted it to me and maybe if someone that in the Twitter audience but someone I believe tweeted to me, and I downloaded and listened to but now I can't find the file.

A recent sermon by Sam Gibb where he mentioned me and Do you remember me playing? Where. Okay, so I must have just mentioned it. Toward the end of the sermon he mentions my name and he says James White so stupid.

He shouldn't be allowed to use sharp implements while eating. You don't remember that one. Yeah, I I guess I thought I'd played that. I guess I didn't I I remember listening to it in my kitchen, so I downloaded it from a.

From from some source, but maybe somebody on Twitter will remember and they'll retweet me that particular URL cuz I've heard that before really. Okay, then I didn't do it on the dividing line.

And it's ironic that he you were listening to that particular kind of comment in your kitchen.

That's true because there were there were numerous sharp implements nearby. Which he would probably feel I should not be allowed to have access to but Yeah, he mentioned me twice right toward the end of a sermon and one of the lines was the James White is so stupid that he should not be allowed to use sharp implements while eating and so I just.

Given how the Ankerberg Exchange turned out and which is on YouTube. I know yeah. Having watched that a few times myself I don't think he should be making statements like that because that's pretty reflective.

Well, I obviously looks at Sam's Sam is. Sam is a caricature of Sam. I mean Sam does not realize just.

How.

Useful he is in in illustrating the mindset of King James. Only us. He really doesn't so he just you know. We played some of his comments recently.

In.

Regards to Calvinism and you can imagine what is. Yeehaw, anyways, let's get back to the Wallace-Ehrman debate. And like I said.

Up to you.

How long we go here? I've already gone 14 minutes but if the if I see the phone lines filling up and you've got some comments you want to make then we'll try to sort of back time leave enough room toward the end the program to get you in and if if not, then we can believe me, we're only.

But why does that say one on that well we're only about 20 some odd minutes into the Wallace-Ehrman debate. So We've got plenty plenty to do there so 877 -753 -3341 if you want to get in just reminder, this is the October 1st Debate this is not the most recent one.

I understand it is, you know, I have that one. I've listened to that one too. We'll get to it when we can but I've played you the portion where Dan made the announcement about the manuscript fines and the Brill book.

Brill is a high-end academic publisher. Anything that comes from Brill is incredibly expensive and The fact that he's one of the editors of the book that's coming out that announces these manuscript fines.

So this is very important but we already played those but going back to the opening statement by Bart Ehrman is where we are. It's been a while. So.

Here we go.

Several examples of ones that strike me as rather significant. Changes where a scribe Will it looks like he's intentionally changing something. Now, we don't have the scribes around the interview. So we don't know that they intentionally changed.

I mean we can't ask them. Did you do this on purpose or not, but you're gonna see from these examples. It looks like somebody's doing this on purpose.

Now, of course, hopefully you're aware of the fact that Bart Ehrman's Really his primary claim to fame in the scholarly realm. I'll be perfectly honest with you is.

His.

1994 as I recall I didn't bring it in with me work where he specifically focuses upon The theolog. What he concludes are the theologically motivated textual variants of the New Testament. And it's a scholarly tome.

There are reasons to question some of its conclusions and things like that, but That's really one of his major strong areas is he has certainly written in that in that particular area. But I appreciate the fact that he admits That well, you know.

We can we can theorize about this. But we can't really know. Keep that in mind because a lot of people quote his stuff as if you can make that conclusion.

But if not, it's just a massive accident, but they still are important changes. And so we'll look at those before. I just want to make one final point that the earliest scribes were much worse than the later scribes.

They certainly made a lot more accidental changes. They may have made a lot more intentional changes and There's no way for us to know I.

Thoroughly disagree once again To say there's no way for us to know is to conclude that having multiple lines of transmission Coming out of the primitive period that are clearly not Genetically directly related and Yet communicate the same text utterly undermines Bart Ehrman's primary theory that there has been this massive kind of uncontrolled Change to the text in the primitive period.

In other words given how? What we have in those earliest manuscripts Coming from different sources different places different lines of transmission when it comes into history. We see the New Testament well as we have it today if to fulfill the kind of Conspiracy theory that Bart Ehrman is making money off of and There is there were there were New Testaments that read very differently than what we have today.

Where's the evidence of their existence? Where is the evidence of their existence see most of the time in these debates? He gets away with demanding that we provide the positive evidence. We provide the photocopies of the originals.

He has to explain why our manuscript tradition is as united as it is. I mean what we've discovered is.

That.

When he when he talks about the earliest obtainable text That he figures we pretty have to much determine that we are just we are just playing games. We are just you know arguing about a jot or a tittle.

But.

It's before that time period that he's positing this this period of just just massive Alteration. Where is the evidence of these other readings these massively altered New Testaments. There isn't any.

There isn't any. And he needs to be challenged on that. Let me tell you about some of the intentional changes.

I'll just just give you a list of ones that these will be passages that if you if you Know your Bibles well, which I have a strange feeling you do. Unlike my students to Chapel Hill.

These will be passages that you probably know about now, it's interesting. I will. You got to remember this most recent debate not this one. The one took place just a few weeks ago. Took place at Chapel Hill and in all of his other debates.

He constantly rips on his students. But he had to all just slightly alter his favorite jokes. So as to not be lynched or pied. On his own on his own campus. That was that was funny. In the King James Bible 1st John chapter 5 verses 7 and 8.

I am absolutely amazed. I will just be honest with you every single time Bart Ehrman talks about the Kami Ohanian. I just shake my head. I Bet I could be wrong. But I bet if we go to his scholarly writings We go to his published articles.

I Have the Brill compilation of most of his all of his early published articles stuff. You know another one was $169 books. I Imagine there's no discussion whatsoever of The Kami Ohanian. Because amongst textually Knowledgeable individuals It's not an issue.

It's not an issue. He knows that a Greek Reading that has nothing earlier than the 14th century to commend it to us textually Was not a part of the original text of New Testament. He knows that. So bringing it up in this context to me just always leaves me shaking my head.

Why is there such a it just I'm sorry anyway.

Provides us with the only place in the entire New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are three persons in the Godhead the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And those are not three gods. The three are one 1st John chapter 5 verses 7 and 8 in In the King James Bible. Refers to there are three in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.

That's in the King James Bible, but it's not in the Greek manuscripts. You get it. It's actually in a few Greek manuscripts and it's in Latin manuscripts, which was at the heart of the Latin Vulgate. It's an important verse because as I said you you can intuit or you can you can reason towards the Trinity from other passages in the New Testament.

This is the only passage that explicitly teaches it and it wasn't originally in the New Testament.

Again Information utterly so basic and So far removed from any serious Trinitarian discussions church history discussions textual critical discussions that I can only conclude that Bart Ehrman Includes it in there for shock value for the ignorant in the audience.

I guess just like King James only us for the opposite reason and of course our Muslim friends who constantly bang away on this despite its utter irrelevance to their case.

Dan and I do not disagree on this point. No, this verse was not originally in the New Testament. Is it an important verse? Well, it was for my grandfather when the revised standard version came out in 1952.

He went through the roof because it didn't have the teaching of the Trinity. They took out the Trinity.

Well that.

Demonstrates that Bart's grandfather was just as ignorant as a lot of the Muslims who criticized the Bible on that level and there's a lot.

Of Christians I.

Understand there's there's ignorance, but I thought this was I Confused. I thought this was a scholarly context and a scholarly discussion. This was a huge offense.

Not nearly as offensive as I would be to him but.

But it was a it was a.

Yeah, he certainly recognizes that where he's ended up would make his grandfather spin in his grave. Definitely, that's the that the he doth speak the truth at this point. It was a huge offense.

Well, it's a rather important matter whether this verse is in there or not.

Is but it's not a disputed issue.

So I just don't know why it shows up here. Jesus ever called the unique God. In the New Testament, it depends which manuscript you trust for John chapter 1 verse 18.

Now this is now, you know, we're getting into the normal Bart Ehrman presentation and What he wants to do is He wants to raise Sometimes as in this case serious textual critical Variance primarily and Do so in the context of Making it sound like well.

It's all It's all up to you. It's it's it's all you know it you sort of have to you know, make up your own mind and and no one really knows and and You know who really knows that's what he wants to try to communicate and.

The reality is there is a textual variant here. There's no question. It's a very very important text of variant it's one that we have discussed many many times before and.

Yet.

Instead of saying, you know Here's an important textual variant. Here's the here's the information. Here's why modern translations have gone the direction they've gone, etc, etc. It's well it all depends on which manuscripts you trust.

That's. He doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe that. He doesn't think that it's just a personal matter or just a matter of choosing which manuscripts you trust. He doesn't he doesn't go there. That's not how he does textual criticism.

So why present it in this way, I think very clearly it is a again a matter of creating in the minds of his hearers a particular kind of understanding that that may or may not have any connection to the truth and of course, we're talking about John 1 18 in case you're wondering and When you look at John chapter 1 verse 18 You know that monogamy stay us unique.

God he's written he's written extensively on this I I don't know I Just don't know why he would he would do this other than what I've just just mentioned, but he knows what the textual evidence is and he knows that he's written entire articles on this subject and so It almost seems like someone playing coy and I don't I don't like coy.

You know, we had someone recently come into no it was somebody in Twitter a couple nights ago some of you may have seen me having a conversation with somebody in Twitter and Let me just tell everybody because sometimes people come in fact.

We had a guy come into the chat channel this morning, and I felt sorry about it. It used a Nick BOET. I think it was BOET. I look down. I've got a PM Indicator, so I've been sent a private message. I opened it up.

This guy sent me a book. I mean pages and pages of.

Stuff I.

Was sort of surprised our system even allowed that to happen to be very honest with you. And so I just sort of said in channel, I don't accept PMS from people. I don't know because I don't. We can chat and channel because a lot of people want to come in the chat channel and go.

I'd like I'd like to ask Dr. White some questions and all of a sudden they feel like I'm a terrible person if I don't stop everything I'm doing and just Chat with them about whatever they want to chat about that's not why I'm there.

I'm not the online Bible answer man. We have at least two hours a week. Normally sometimes more where I'm here. Phone lines are open right now, and there's there's plenty of ways to contact me. That's that's not the way to do it.

Anyways, I felt badly because I just sort of had to explain to the guy. That's not how you do it and I was already aware of that and he went left. Thinking that I was mad at him and I wasn't and I saw sort of felt badly about them but back to the point if you come into our chat channel and You want to argue we have a simple rule You tell us where you're coming from.

You tell us what church you're a part of tell us what your spiritual background is. Because it is worthless to have a conversation with somebody. When they won't tell you where they're coming from. It's a waste of time.

If at least I know where you're coming from then I can put a context to your words and we might be able to communicate. Well, there's this guy in Twitter a couple nights ago, and he just couldn't get the message.

He was he was angry with me because I had Made some comments about the pastor in Iran and I had made some comments about oneness teaching and stuff like that and He he's telling I'm so well what church you go to.

I'm a radical apostolic Christian monotheist and on the one hand he says Jesus is The I am none the other hand. He doesn't believe he pre-existed. And I'm like what I mean you could not even make heads or tails out of what this guy was saying I was just it was complete gobbledygook.

And every time I kept saying would you at least tell me what church you go to I can go look at the statement of Faith. I can have some con. Hey, if you're defending your faith, you don't need to know anything about mine.

No, that's not true. Because your questions assume certain backgrounds that I may not know. So you you have to be upfront and honest and.

Answer that question. It's just necessary. Imagine the criticism you would get if you hid from the public. Oh church, you went to right out there throwing it out. Yeah, you know and this is Bible doctrine.

So take it because I said it right? Yeah. No, I I can't expect it of others and I'm certainly not going to expect it. In that context and especially in a written context in Twitter in the chat channel by email.

The only way to make heads or tails is to be open about where you're coming from. It's just it's just absolutely necessary. I'm not sure how I got there, but Just something I wanted to mention.

Luke, Atonement, and the Gospel Tradition

Some of our manuscripts the manuscripts that some textual scholars prefer and others don't prefer some in this verse. Talk about Jesus as the unique God.

No, some textual scholars refer in other words the vast majority and in fact interestingly enough Bart Ehrman will at one point say well critical scholars, which means all scholars who agree with him.

Well when it comes to this issue the vast majority of the people that he himself insists we need to listen to would agree that p66 and and p75 and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really really important and There are some you know Byzantine priority folks, but they represent a very small minority so it just seems like You know Bart changes his tune depending on who he's talking to what's he's what he's trying to accomplish.

No one has seen the father at any time the unique son or The unique God who is in the bosom the father that one has made him known. Is Jesus actually the unique God himself. Or is he the Son of God. Both are important, but I mean it does matter whether Jesus is called God the God in the New Testament.

Depends what you do with John chapter 1 verse 18. You know I was looking the the newer the newer editions of Accordance have this thing called New Testament textual interlinear and I've set it up on my on my computer here in the in the dividing line studios and I've got Tischendorf the TR Westcott Hort Byzantine.

And.

The and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and. They're supposed to give me the readings of each one of these and I just realized there's clearly a problem with these. Because it it lists for both the TR and the Byzantine the reading of Theon Monogamous Theon and that is not the reading of the TR nor of the Byzantine manuscript tradition.

I Think I need to let the folks at Accordance know that. I'm glad I didn't. I'm glad I looked at that. That's that's very very very interesting. I will go to a different tab that I have that has the more accurate information see.

It's good to be able to check things out.

Does the gospel of Luke teach a doctrine of atonement?

The doc now this one's interesting. Especially Given the fact that Where are where ermine's coming from? Asking the question seems a little unfair to me Because I don't think he thinks that Luke or Paul or John or anybody else is consistent enough within even their own Books their own writings to determine what their quote-unquote Theology is in the first place.

So I think it's I think it's a little unfair Because his system really wouldn't allow him to answer that in a meaningful fashion.

Even if there wasn't a textual variant the doctrine of atonement is that Christ's death for sins.

Luke.

Interestingly. Changes a number of verses he found in his predecessor the gospel of Mark which talked about Jesus as an atonement for sins. Okay, so there's a little bit complicated, but everybody. Most Bible scholars.

I don't know. I think most Bible scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written in the Luke copied Mark.

For some of his stories and he got stories from other sources, which is a one of the main reasons I don't just simply bow down to current consensus and Mark and priority theories and stuff like that and It's difficult I realize for theological students to see the reasons why right now but just remember that if if you were in the cutting edge of theological education 140 years ago you would have thought that John was written 170 AD.

There's a lot of things that you would have you would have accepted just because that's what everybody accepted and that nobody accepts it today and. So just just keep that in mind. I realize that there there's there's this pressure to fit in and to all the rest that stuff.

Again I think it's far more important to take the the bigger view Than the short-range view which unfortunately Christian scholarship frequently takes the short-range view.

One of the verses in Mark is a very famous verse from Mark chapter 10 the Son of Man Came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. This is a verse that Luke excluded when he gave his account of Jesus life.

He doesn't include that verse for for whatever reason. It is striking that the only place where Luke's Ideas about Jesus death Indicate that his death was an atonement for sins is in the passage Luke 22 verses 19 and 20 Where Jesus give is it's at the Last Supper.

Jesus.

In Luke's gospel Jesus first gives the cup before he gives the bread. This is the cup of the New Covenant, etc. Then he gives the gives the bread. This is my body broken and Then in some manuscripts, it doesn't just say this is my body that's been broken it says this is my body that has been broken for you and Then it goes on to say this cup is the covenant of my blood which is shed for you the death of Jesus for the sake of others.

Which is otherwise missing in Luke and you say well, so what if it's missing in Luke, it's in Matthew. Okay, but does it matter what Luke says or not? Say no, it doesn't matter. It just matters what Matthew says really?

Luke doesn't have a doctrine of atonement depending on which manuscripts you trust for chapter 22.

Now here's here's one of the problems I have with this. Ehrman seems to think that the Gospels Existed in a vacuum. Well, okay not so much vacuum given that he says that Luke was using Mark and just sort of editing him for the fun of it.

But he doesn't seem to recognize that the Gospels as they were written Were intended for use in the church and that part and parcel of the worship of the church Was the recitation. The retelling of the stories of the ministry of Jesus himself.

And.

So the gospel writers would not think well This is all someone's going to have. Because if you are part of the Christian community That's not the case. So it wasn't that Luke is sitting going. Well, if I don't include this and someone may never know about it, and I don't then someone may never know.

That's that's not that's not a part of the context at all. It's it's similar to the objections that I hear from my Muslim friends against Paul.

Well.

Paul never talks about the historical Jesus and Paul really didn't believe that Jesus existed historically because he doesn't talk about the virgin birth and He doesn't talk about the story of Jesus. You really think that every book every epistle He wrote he had to repeat the entire gospel story over and over and over and over and over again.

When he already knew that the whole reason that church existed was because the stories of Jesus were already part and parcel of what they possessed. It was a part of their regular every Lord's Day.

Recitations and.

Especially we talked about this. I mean there's a very interesting and important set of variants in Luke chapter 22 verses 17 through 20 and. And they need to be examined on the basis of the manuscripts in which they're found and.