Mockery is not a Christian Virtue, then, the Carson/Huff Discussion

Opening Road Trip Update and Technical Setup

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line.

My name's James White.

It is the last of the road trip DLs for, well, for 2024,.

Really.

No, I can't finish setting you up right now, OK? Yeah, just, OK, just you sit there and do your thing, OK? That's all we can do for right now.

Sorry.

IPhone just updated to the new iOS with all the cool programs and stuff where I'll be able to make my own personal emojis, which I might have some fun with that. There's certain family signal chats that that could end up being fun.

But anyway, we'll look at all that later on. It just got done. And I'm hoping that the stream's going to work all right. I got all set up. We were going to go for a half an hour ago just using 5G, and it crashed and burned.

And so I had to put Starlink out and then take Starlink a while to sort of find the satellites. Amazing system, it really is. It seems to be doing pretty good right now. So let's hope that we get through everything here without too much of a difficulty.

As I said, long leg today, longest leg. I don't know why I, well, I do know why. I wanted to try out this RV park. There's a KOA here that I've stayed at many times, but it doesn't seem like they have slots big enough for this unit.

Every time I've tried to get reservations here, it's said we can't. And so I'm just wondering if I've just exceeded their range. I can't believe that that would be the case because they've got big stuff.

But anyway, I wanted to try it out because this was the park I was supposed to stay in months ago when my dear brother, Jeff, and another brother from the church drove all the way up here just to drive me to the ER for surgery.

And so that was another reason to get here. So I'm here and have no intentions on going to the ER this evening, Lord willing. Who knows what could happen? But so yeah, long day. And during that time, I listened to the Billy Carson, Wes Hough.

It wasn't a debate. There was no thesis. There was no even times. There was no moderator. It was Wes versus two guys on about 47 different topics, I would say, which unfortunately is really what happens with that kind of stuff.

Billy Carson should never do an actual formal debate because it would be, if he's upset about what happened there, and he is big time, when you're talking about suing people for a million dollars, you're pretty upset about what took place.

If he's upset about that, I can't imagine what would happen if he actually did a debate. And believe me, it's not the first time I've heard a guy or people threatening to sue and saying you can't make that available.

That's happened before. Happened to me when I debated Barry Lynn in 2001 on Long Island on the subject of homosexuality. And he was gonna file suit against us in the Ninth Circuit Court to suppress the tapes of that debate.

And it was a debate this time, which he had agreed to do. And so we filed suit against him in Washington, which is where copyright issues are supposed to be done, the Alliance Defending Freedom. Alliance Defense Fund back then was representing us.

And that's why you can watch that debate today is because for the grand total of the sum of $1, we were able to make that debate available. So yeah, nothing new about this. It has happened before, but we'll be talking about that in a moment.

We'll get to that in a moment. But also on my trip today, I got to stunningly listen to Apologia Radio today live. It almost never happens because it is Thursday. And generally we do a dividing line in the afternoon, pretty much the same time as Apologia Radio.

I don't know why that happens, but they have to do it when they can do it and can get people together. And same thing with Rich and I, and it just seems to work that way. And so they had Andrew Sandlin on today and were discussing his article that got so many young gym rats upset a few weeks ago.

It was a great discussion. I hope you'll look it up and listen to it today, the today's episode. And one of the reasons I want you to listen to, I love Luke. I love all the guys I worked with there, Jeff and Luke and Zach and Zach.

One's H and one's K. Zach Conover was on today, I love Zach. Zach, I had asked my wife to give you your Christmas present and to videotape you opening it, but she hasn't done that yet. And so I'm disappointed about that, but you better be at church on Sunday because it's good.

It's good, you're gonna love it. Anyway, so love these guys and what they do. And Luke has always gone after me for being the old guy. I'm the elderly elder and he really started getting into it today and he's getting riled up and then loses his train of thought.

He was gonna say something and then it's like, oh, I forgot what I was gonna say. I'm just sitting there going, see, it's not boomer brain. It's not a massive old age. It just happens to us all. And I'm enjoying watching that happening because I knew it would.

And so anyways, check out Apology Radio, the episode today. I think you will be blessed by that. But along those same lines, I got to hear about, since I've heard nothing more about drones, obviously being piloted by the mothership in orbit or something like that, Independence Day is about to take place, the real movie, who knows?

But though they're only going to invade Delaware, or New Jersey or Staten, why in the world would aliens want to have anything to do with Staten Island? Can we just offer them Staten Island and see if they'll go away?

Just take it with you, it's okay. Anyway, almost as weird is a clip that I saw this morning. I don't even know necessarily how to describe it, but I'm going to try as best I can to bring it up. And it may take a second of silence to get this to work and all the rest of that kind of fun stuff.

But I want you to see this. And let's try that. Okay, that was okay. So here we go. I'm going to try to make this work for you. Hold on just one moment.

Mocking, Anons, and the Drift Toward Christian Nationalism

Mocking. Here's the thing, mocking, there is a biblical theological case for mocking and mockery is absolutely effective. It can be done in a sinful manner. In biblical. Well, that's what I said, there's a theological case for it.

So mocking is permissible in biblical terms. That doesn't mean that it's always right. You can do it wrongly, you can do it rightly. So, and that's in the moral sense, in the biblical sense. But then there's the sense of how, is it effective or not?

And it is highly, highly effective. We need a non accounts to mock certain people off of Twitter. There are certain people who are on X right now who need to, they need to be on blue skies. And by God's grace, a lot of them have left.

That's right.

Still waiting on own strand. But there are some others that I think by God's grace, if we can get just a few more anon accounts, I think we can do it.

Okay.

First of all, what you have there, the admission on Joel's part, they're talking about anonymous accounts, anons. I'm not sure why we say anons, but anons would be more relevant to the actual term. Anyway, so you have two things here.

You have an entire webcast in defense of anonymous accounts. And of course, you can make an argument that certain people need to be anonymous. Turretin fan for many, many years was anonymous. Most people know who he is and why he was anonymous for the time that he was.

But here you've got someone who produces not mockery memes, but multi-hour programs diving in depth into obscure historical stuff that almost nobody else dives into. And so massive difference there. But you can just go, well, there might be reasons why some would be anonymous.

Okay.

But I would say in the current situation on social media, that does not apply to 99 .95 of the individuals, especially the red background, blue eyed, dark MAGA, whatever people who are anonymous because if they weren't, the churches that they're attending would take notice and would try to bring correction.

Or they're anonymous because they know that what they're saying and what they're doing is grossly sub-Christian. So that's the first issue regarding quote unquote, anonymous accounts. I can see a few situations where that would be acceptable.

The vast majority are anonymous because they're irresponsible and because they're engaging in behavior that is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian faith.

And they know it.

And so that's why they're doing what they're doing. Secondly, here, Joel tips his hat that they've been using their anonymous army to engage in mockery of myself, Doug Wilson, Joe Boot, Andrew Sandlin, basically everyone who they used to identify with.

But I think about three weeks ago, just made the decision, you know what? We're done. We're going full on Stephen Wolf. We're going full on natural law. We're going full on the whole nine yards. I just think there was probably a Zoom call or something where it was just decided, you know what?

This is what we're gonna do. We're not gonna put up with this anymore. We're gonna go all the way. Because they're having Wolf and Andrew Isker at this conference in April. And I think you're gonna see further developments between now and April.

And then you're gonna see developments thereafter. I think a year from now, the lines are gonna be very, very clear. And those lines are gonna be focused around, well, quite simply, when you're a Thomist, Thomist's gospel is not the Reformed gospel.

And the reality is that the divisions will be based upon the difference between the Reformation theologically considered in regards to its central aspect, sufficiency of scripture, soteriology, grace, versus the Reformation neutered by return to Thomism.

So natural law, rejection of presuppositionalism, rejection of any form of theonomy, general equity theonomy, in favor of natural law, theology, and things related there too. And really a neutering of any kind of serious post-millennial hope.

Because remember, Stephen Wolf is a non-regenerationist. He believes that Christian nationalism can and should be established apart from the Puritan hope, the regeneration of the nations, the nations coming to God's holy hill seeking his Torah.

No, you need Christian princes. It's Christendom 1 .0. It's what we had up through the Reformation, the Reformers were sacralists, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a really bad system. And it was certainly unbiblical, and that's why it eventually was properly abandoned.

But now we have people who want to bring it back. And I just don't think there's any way of sort of standing in the middle. Some people will try, but no matter what, you're gonna end up with blood and soil nationalism versus the Puritan hope, build the kingdom for the future.

We may not see it now, but unless the spirit of God changes hearts and minds, it's not gonna happen. It can't happen. It's impossible. And so we're gonna see those things happening. But in this situation, I just wanna point out that notice what was said.

Mockery is very effective. By what standard? Oh, where have I heard that? By what standard? Yeah, by what standard? How do you measure that? Because the first thing that crosses my mind when someone makes a statement like that is, what does scripture say?

And when you think of the term mocker and mockery, or the verb to mock in scripture, what do you automatically think of? Today on Apology Radio, Andrew Sandlin, it was really interesting. I think he said his dad had encouraged him to read through the Proverbs.

There's 31 chapters, there's 31 days, a number of months anyways. And so he says that once a year, he does that. One month each year, he will just read a chapter of Proverbs each day aside from whatever reading he's doing.

And his point was, look, if you want to know how to live as a Christian young man, if you want to know what God's word says should be your goals and your guidance, presenting to God a heart of wisdom.

That's been a sermon I've preached many, many times. And yeah, Proverbs is just a goldmine. Jeff is preaching through it at Apologia. A couple others of us have stepped in and done a few sections. I don't know how he's gonna do the rest of the book because we're in the latter half of the book where each verse is a context unto itself, that each verse is a statement to itself.

It's not till you get to the godly woman that you go back to something where you actually have something of a context you can look at. And earlier in Proverbs year too, but you don't have that anymore.

And so you have to sort of string stuff together. It can be rather challenging. Anyway, that's extremely wise, but look at the term mockery in Proverbs or in the Psalter or in the prophets. It's not positive.

About the only place you can come up with something is when Elijah mocks the false gods. Okay, I had a friend once. He turned on me and betrayed me. And no matter how many times I tried to fix that situation, and eventually he's become an apostate.

But anyway, bright individual, but real difficulty with anger, arrogance, pride, things like that. And I had talked to him about it many, many times. And when he would talk to unbelievers or even when he talked to believers, but when he would talk to unbelievers, he could just be horrifically nasty, just acerbic is not even the proper term.

And when I would confront him about it, he would say, look, the prophets use mockery. I mean, Ezekiel uses mockery and Elijah uses mockery. And so, they use strong language. So I'm just following their lead.

And again, this is how people who have self-control problems excuse their self-control problems, is they say, well, prophets did it, then I can too. And I said to him, well, they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and you struggle with anger.

So maybe that really wouldn't be so wise given that you can't seem to control it. And so, likewise, are you then going to, after mocking your opponents, slaughter them like Elijah did? That seems a little bit harsh.

Doesn't seem to really fit with the New Testament pattern, but hey, these days, who knows? Hard to see. But you go into the New Testament and there is nothing positive anywhere in the New Testament. Nowhere can you make an argument that mockery is a New Testament suggested mechanism of doing evangelism or apologetics.

But you find lots of places, well, you find some places, where mockery is a danger. So for example, in Jude and in, of course, 2 Peter,.

They're very much parallel.

But you, beloved, must remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that were saying to you in the last time, there will be mockers following after their own ungodly lusts.

These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly -minded, not having the Spirit. Oh, so here you have inspired scripture where we are being reminded of things spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ and that they were saying to the church in the last time, there will be mockers following after their own ungodly lusts.

Well, that doesn't sound like a positive use of mockery,.

Does it?

Instead, it sounds like people who mock do so because they're following after their only ungodly, their own ungodly lusts. So there is a, it's very obvious, you know, to adults that when your children start mocking one another, that's not a positive behavior.

And I doubt any Christian parents would accept their child going, but Elijah did it? Yeah, but what's your desire in doing this? Well, mockers follow after their own ungodly lusts and they are the ones who cause divisions.

Oh, really, divisions? How could that be? They are worldly-minded. They think about the things of the world, not having the Spirit. So they are, in the original language, they're called sukukoi, so they're fleshly, not having the pneuma.

So if you have the pneuma, if you have the Spirit, what do you do? But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life.

How descriptive of much of what happens in social media is that? I was directed, I think before I pulled out this morning, yeah, to someone put up a mockery statement called the Ehud Statement. And I think they purposely made it look like the Antioch Declaration and stuff like that.

And it's about fat pastors. Fat pastors. And the comment I made to the group that I saw it in was, what kind of person has the time to be doing something like this? Do they really think that they are in some way acting a way that is pleasing to God?

Are they really gonna honestly say, yes, the Spirit of God moved me to spend this kind of time in mockery? I don't believe that for a second. It's inexcusable. It's like, okay, you have only so much time on earth and you decided to invest your time in something like this.

Doesn't sound like building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For eternal life.

And I'm somewhere doubting have mercy. Mockers, I don't find mockers to be the ones who are consistently witnessing, engaging in evangelism, godly homes, proper relationships and service in the church.

No, I said that that doesn't go together with that kind of mindset and the memes that people have been producing and stuff like that. I don't see any of that. You see, pastorally, a pastor does not want to be encouraging attitudes amongst people that will be self-destructive to them.

But you heard what Pastor Webben said, we need more anonymous, so without responsibility, don't know what church you're associated with, their elders don't know. That's just so obviously dangerous. So obviously dangerous that I'm just left going, what?

But we need more anonymous mockers to engage in a self-destructive activity to silence his critics and get them off of the social media. And he names a name, Owen Strayer. Wow, at least now we know what he's saying is, I think it's proper to use irresponsible people to mock Christian ministers to silence them on Twitter.

So like I said, I think by this time next year, the lines are gonna be so clearly drawn, so clearly drawn. And they're being drawn right now. But I was just, there were other things in this defense of anons that were equally astonishing, but we don't have time to go into all that right now.

But like I said, we're gonna see things continue to develop, just, it's inevitable. It's inevitable because the people that they are courting, and I've told this to some of these men, the people that they are wanting to have as their followers will always be demanding new stuff.

And the new stuff will have to be more and more and more exciting, which means more and more and more rebellious. That's all there is to it. So at some point, they're gonna have to go, whoop, stop, and then they will be turned on and eaten alive, if that's what they choose to do.

Otherwise, they'll have to just continue on and it'll get worse and worse and worse and the trajectory is off into who knows what. I've told them, I've said it. They've decided, not gonna listen to you, don't care.

Billy Carson, Wes Huff, and the Claim That Jesus Was Not Crucified

Okay, all right, well, I did my part and we'll see how that all plays out. Okay, so on Twitter yesterday afternoon, I saw someone saying, I'd like to hear what James White says about the Billy Carson, Wes Hough debate.

And I'm like, sorry, don't have any idea what that is. I do not live in social media. The only social media platform that I spend serious time in is Twitter, Facebook, have some really cool, the things I like about Facebook are the little videos, the sort of up and down videos, clips or something, of various, especially baseball stuff, some cool triple play or something like that.

And Calvin and Hobbes comic strips. Whatever you click like on, you'll get a bunch of it. So I was clicking like on watches for a while so you could see all these cool watches. And then I started clicking on World War II fighter aircraft so I got a bunch of World War II fighter aircraft.

It's almost like playing with the algorithm just to the fun of it. But otherwise I don't, about the only thing I like about Facebook is it's memories thing. Like it just, it threw up a picture yesterday from nine years ago of little Clementine.

And she was just so tiny. And she was staying with grandma and grandpa overnight and she was probably watching something on TV and I think she was eating meatballs, which everybody in our family is going, yeah, probably.

Just something my wife does. When Kelly doesn't know what else to cook,.

She makes meatballs.

It's just sort of how it works. Anyway, but Facebook and me, so I don't live on these things, so I don't see this stuff. And so I was given a link and I managed to download, got a new computer and I haven't figured out how to make it do some of the stuff that my old computer could do.

I'm sure it can, it's just, I have to catch up with the technology, I guess. Probably a faster way to do it now. Anyway, got it downloaded in audio format. I watched a few minutes of it in video just so I'd have a mental picture of what was going on.

And so I asked, well, what's this about? Because I didn't know who was involved. I have found out since then that Westhoff spoke at the Ezra Institute apologetics thing that Jeff spoke at. I'm wondering if that was the one where I was with them up in upstate New York and then they went up into Canada and I went elsewhere.

Maybe it was. Anyway, so he's, Westhoff has spoken for the Ezra Institute, Joe Booth. And so, that's a big positive thing from my perspective. And so I asked for a summary, some people gave me a summary and then another guy linked me to, about a 16 minute video that I listened to first this morning as I started my drive.

And it was a guy, evidently what happened is, this was so negative for this Billy Carson guy that he did a three hour video responding to this. Responding to what happened in that debate. And again, it was not a debate.

There was no moderator, there was no thesis statement, there was no equal time, wasn't even close to equal time. The guy whose webcast it is, I think, took up most of the time actually, especially toward the end.

But, so it wasn't a debate, it was a discussion. And this Billy Carson guy, I'm pretty sure someone sent me a clip of this fellow talking about something, I don't know, about six months ago. And I just remember watching it going, what, this guy didn't have a clue what he was talking about when he was talking about the Bible, I mean, what?

It was sort of like almost a black Hebrew Israelite thing with space aliens thrown in for the fun of it. It was, I think I bookmarked it. I don't think I ever got around to commenting on it. I don't think I did.

But I'm pretty sure it was the same guy. And evidently, he's making bank with all this stuff that he does about ancient civilizations and he travels around the world and he throws all this stuff together.

And so this guy did this 16 minute video where he summarizes Carson's attempt to do damage control. And that's where I learned a lot about him because there's this whole section where he's mocking the people who he feels are attacking him.

He says they're all poor. He's not just a worker bee. He brags a lot about the places he stays and the billionaires that he knows. And it's really a massive turnoff. It's just like, ugh, okay. But lo and behold, he's making, he's telling people, I'm gonna sue these guys.

I'm gonna sue the guy who, the Mark Menard. And look, at the beginning of the thing, they're just great buddies and Menard supported him in a lot of stuff that he was saying. Menard claims to be a Christian, but he's clearly massively confused, doesn't understand the Old Testament.

He doesn't hold Jesus's own view of scripture. He's created Jesus that he really, really likes, but that never existed. It's a Jesus of emotion. It's a Jesus who makes me feel good, but it's not the Jesus of scripture.

And so he wasn't, Wes was going up against two different positions with these guys, but he's talking about suing for a million dollars. And you're like, like I said at the beginning, oh, it's Barry Lynn all over again.

Wow, okay. Certainly means that no one's ever going to engage him again nor should they. Given his behavior. But then he's coming up with all these excuses. I had had pneumonia and I was in the hospital and I still had a bandaid on my arm from the IVs and all the, and maybe that's true.

I don't know, but I certainly couldn't tell it. And he certainly never made any reference to it. And as the guy who made the video pointed out, the arguments he was using about the stuff they were supposed to be talking about, are found in all of his videotapes before this.

So what happened in the conversation? Well, and this is what I would say to Wes. First of all, he did a great job, was very patient, probably more patient than I would have been. People all the time go, I actually had a conversation with the guy.

I called him on the phone, he asked me to. And we talked and he said, how do you stay so calm and patient in these debate situations?

I'm like, I don't.

I know it may seem that way, but not really. I mean, most of the time it's just, hey, once your opponent starts losing it, just keep giving him rope and let them do what they're going to do. But Wes was very, very patient and even though he kept getting cut off, it wasn't anything other than, when I look over like that, I'm looking at the cash thing over on the feed, on the screen and making sure that the connection's still happening because look, this technology is not yet perfected.

I just think back to 2016 when I did that stuff on the Dr. Drew show via Skype and how much better things are now. And I'm sitting in an RV, hundreds of miles from home. I've still got a drive tomorrow, not a long drive, thankfully, but it's a downhill drive with one big climb in the middle.

But I'm coming to you via satellite. And I set the dishes right out there. It's not really a dish, it's just a flat thing that big and I got it oriented right and then the signal stabilized after a while and here I am.

I mean, it's wow. Things have really, really, really, really, really changed. But even down at the office, when I'm back home, I've had the internet just disappear right in the middle of doing an interview or right at the end of an interview, whatever else.

It still happens. Things are not perfected yet. And so, especially toward the end, I think Wes got cut off for like six or seven minutes because the two of them were just hammering away on the Old Testament and the God of the Old Testament.

They're being great Gnostics. And Wes had tried, was trying to explain basic hermeneutics and neither one of them would even touch with a 10 foot pole. No, not interested in that at all. We've got our, we've made up our decisions and we've made our decisions, we're sticking with it.

So anyway, right at the start, the big thing was that this Billy Carson guy says that Jesus was not crucified. And when you hear someone say that, two things cross our mind. Have they been influenced by Islam?

Surah 4, 1 to 7 in the Quran, they did not crucify him, it was made to appear to them and that's understood different ways by Muslims. Have they been influenced somehow by Islam? And are they aware that even the most radical skeptics, John Dominic Crossan, for example, Bart Ehrman, they'll all say the same thing.

The most sure historical fact about Jesus's life is his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. They may question everything else about Jesus's life, but the one thing that's really not questionable is the crucifixion.

And so I'm like, okay, I'll be interested to see how this pans out. So Carson says, well, the crucifixion isn't found in the Sinai Bible, which is much earlier than the King James Bible. Now I can guarantee you that, I know what was probably going through Wes's mind at that point, and he said he'd been listening to stuff.

I'm sure he wasn't surprised. But when you hear someone say something like that, they have just said to you, I know nothing about the history of the Bible, but I'm going to make dogmatic statements about it anyways, and probably enjoy it while I'm doing it.

Because there is no such thing as a Sinai Bible. He was talking about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Sinaiticus, I was told, I saw somewhere else, someone else made the comment that Wes turned around and pulled his facsimile of Sinaiticus.

Now that baby weighs at least 45 pounds. I mean, and when we go to the side camera in the studio, in the regular studio back in Phoenix, mine's down behind me where the 1550 Stephanus is. And I don't think Wes has a 1550 Stephanus, sorry, bro.

Maybe someday. But, because I know you'd like one. Anyway, he pulls out Sinaiticus, and I can only imagine that Billy Carson's like, uh-oh. Because he's been saying it wrong in video after video after video after video after video.

He clearly doesn't even know what it is. He does not know it is, yes, the earliest complete Bible that we have. Not in both original languages, because it's in Greek all the way through, but when it was discovered, it was certainly the earliest Septuagint that we had, the Old Testament in Greek.

And together with Vaticanus, Vaticanus was known before Sinaiticus. But they're probably contemporaneous as far as they're dating between 325 and 350. So, all he has to do is say, and the crucifixions throughout Codex Sinaiticus.

I guess Carson tried to say, well, it's not in his three-hour rebuttal video. It's not in, you know, the Sinai Bible doesn't have the long reading of Mark. Well, long reading of Mark contains resurrection story, not, but not the crucifixion.

The crucifixion part of Mark is right there in Sinaiticus, as it is in Matthew and Luke and John. And the references to Christ crucified are bound all through Paul. And it's, he's just been wrong all along.

Don't know where he got it. It did seem in light of what he immediately defaulted to, that at some point in the not too distant past, Billy Carson ran into some Islamic Dawah material online and heisted it, just borrowed it wholesale.

Because once Wes is sitting there holding Codex Sinaiticus, says, ah, it's in here. He goes, oh, I misspoke. He didn't misspeak, that was a lie. All of his videos had said the Sinai Bible. He had repeated this over and over again.

It almost made me think of Ergen Kanner. You know, this is called a microphone. You talk into it, it records things. You can't just go, I misspoke when you've misspoken 25 times on videos that you still have on your YouTube channel.

That's not misspeaking. You were in error. You were wrong, big time wrong. So he goes, I didn't mean Codex Sinaiticus. I meant that I, again, I kept this big, huge unit on the road. I didn't even hit the rumble strips.

He goes, I meant the Gospel of Barnabas.

Okay.

We have, I don't remember, and again, anybody who wants to can go back to the transcripts page at aomin .org and put in Gospel of Barnabas, and I'm sure it'll pull it up. We've walked through this. It would have been probably between 2006 and 2007.

10 or so during the, what I would call the intense Islamic period of my study and writing and debating and traveling and debating in mosques in South Africa and London and down in Australia and places like that.

We have talked about the Gospel of Barnabas, which is different than the Epistle of Barnabas. A lot of people get really confused. Those names get attached to all sorts of things. But the reality is the Gospel of Barnabas is a 14th century forgery, possibly by someone, it's difficult to determine their motivations.

It's such a royal mess, theologically, historically. It's a study in anachronism. The things it says existed in the past, it didn't. And clearly the author had been influenced by Islam, but whether he's a Muslim or not, it's hard to say, because he has things in there that Muslims don't believe, too.

So that's strange as to how exactly that works. But it's an abject forgery. And I've had Muslims bring it up in debates, of course. And normally it comes up to where you only have the opportunity to respond to it in rebuttal.

Rebuttal periods are notoriously short, so you can only say so many things, but it's a complete forgery. And it's embarrassing that anyone would ever make reference to it as if it has anything to do with the contemporary period of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection.

Now, what was interesting is Billy Carson, as soon as he pulled out Sinaiticus, he said something along the lines of, well, I'll go with that. I'll go with what he said, with what Wes said about Sinaiticus obviously containing testimony of the crucifixion of Christ.