“Mother of God” Debate

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. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning

Working our way all the way into September September 8th already rich was very excited to discover that tomorrow is nine nine nine and You you showed a tremendous amount of excitement about that that was sort of scary to me actually and Then he said that he should call

Harold camping and find out if there's anything significant to that and the scary thing is I? Think if you called

Harold camping, you might find out there is something significant to nine nine. Oh nine

Because there's less than two years left. Remember folks May 21st 2011, which is a real bummer because surveyed as evangelical

Isn't going to be revealing his identity until September of that year. I think it was September 29th.

My recollection is that Everything got the earth is gone by September 22nd.

So he's gonna be a week late That means no one's ever gonna know. Yeah Like I said, what is it about 2011 anyway,

I Was riding this morning and I listened to a debate.

I should have linked to this Apologize I should have linked to this on the blog I was going to and got distracted by other things

But our own blog favorite Turret and fan did a Skype debate with William Albrecht on the subject of Mary as the mother of God the

Theotokos the God -bearer and Like I said, it's available

I'll try to find the link. I Was given a YouTube link and then in the

YouTube info section was the link to the audio that's how I got it and Then converted that to an audiobook format so I could put on my nano which can play it at 140 percent and people sound very good when they're talking 140 percent of their acting actual normal speed because that's how dramatic talks all the time and The geriatrics sounds sounds very interesting at 140 percent

I've someone sent me 18 hours of Jerry Matitek lectures on one one

CD 18 hours in audiobook format, it's And am

I listening to I've listened to about an hour and a half two hours of it so far and it's fascinating It really is fascinating because you can tell where he's going.

He's he's building this case There's always been these people persecuting the true remnant Church and of course, you know, he's a set of vacancies, so They're the true remnants and you know now it's the big bad

Roman Church. That's persecuting the faithful remnant and it's Fascinating to hear that kind of stuff

But that's not we're talking about today. Anyway back to the debate. I listen to debate this morning And I want to play the cross -examination sections, which isn't a long.

I think it's only five minutes each It took less time that I was writing because it was going faster, but I won't listen to the cross -examination

It's fascinating to me once again to you know, William Albrecht Steve Ray refers to him and Hey if they're gonna if they're gonna put them out there then great they get to get to live with the with the results

Here's here's a Catholic apologist Talking about the issue of Mary as the mother of God and Turretin fan had talked about the historical context of that term and its appropriateness in that historical context as a

Christological title Not as a Mary illogical title and of course the biggest thing has changed since the fourth and fifth centuries is the fact that that has

Changed from being a Christological title and hence relevant to Nestorian ism or pollinarian ism or eutychian ism or whatever else

To where it has become a Mary illogical a title that is instead of saying something about the one who was born

It now says something about the one who bore and it is painfully obvious beyond all possible dispute that the common usage of The term mother of God today in Roman Catholic theology is one that is focused upon the exaltation of Mary And that the vast majority of Roman Catholics who use that term are not using it in its historical sense at all they are using it in the sense of a creature

Who has some kind of special? mediatorial capacity as a mother has with a father in regards to providing grace and mercy

And help to those who would plead for her intercession That's how it's used today.

I mean, that's the if all you do is talk about the the early church situation you're missing the point because One thing

I would have raised or it said in passing In this debate is that none of the other church fathers that were quoting believe everything that my

Roman Catholic opponent believes about Mary none of them The dogmas the two most recent dogmas the immaculate conception the bodily assumption of Mary These are not things that were affirmed by any of those early church fathers

William Albrecht is going to be quoting At all and and so our modern context of discussion of the use of this term

Has to take into consideration this massive change this massive

De -evolution away from biblical truth in the exaltation Mary to a position that of course scripturally she never ever has

None of the Apostles ever even hinted at the kind of exaltation that she's experienced and Even those in the early church would have been amazed at the

Teachings the Roman Catholic Church today in regards to Mary and so keeping that in mind then It's fascinating to listen to Roman Catholic apologists talking about Mary is the mother of God and all these things and then he's asked a very simple question a

Very simple question that would require him to understand and to know a simple

Orthodox definition of the doctrine of the Trinity Specifically that within the one being that is

God there exists three Co -equal and co -eternal persons the Father the Son the Holy Spirit now. This is this is orthodox

Roman Catholicism But as you will see Mr. Albrecht knows much about Mary Knows very little about the

Trinity Because he doesn't understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is and doesn't understand the Orthodox use the term being in Regards the being of God which is shared fully and completely by three divine persons.

That's historic Roman Catholic Doctrine the subject but Roman Catholic apologists tend to be focused upon the things that define

Rome and the Trinity isn't one of them You don't find too many

Roman Catholic apologists doing a very good job in defending the Trinity Why because they've already shot the foundation out from underneath themselves

How many times you've heard Carl Keating and Jimmy Akin and all these others saying well We wouldn't know the

Trinity if we just believe in the soul of scriptura So they don't defend the

Trinity in a truly biblical fashion. You believe in Trinity because the church tells you so So this is they've already lost the meaningful foundation.

This is a divine revelation that God has given to us then you can see why it becomes secondary, so let's listen to the

Cross -examination here and you will see Exactly how this comes up in the line of approach the turt and fan took

That I was denying that Christ is both divine and human Not at all

Okay, and did you have the impression that I was arguing that your church? Actually teaches that Mary is the mother of the

Godhead and not only of Jesus. I Did not have the impression That you thought that they officially taught that but I didn't quite understand why you would have made the comment as such if No official

Catholic teaching no church father No official statement ever claims that Mary was the mother of the

Godhead the mother of the Trinity I don't understand why that argument would have been brought up Very well the the next question is

Isn't it true that the term God encompasses? Not only

Jesus, but the term God also can be reused to refer to the Father and to the Holy Spirit Absolutely that it's not a point of contention

So if someone heard that Mary is the mother of God, and they don't hear any other explanation

Isn't it possible that they could reach the wrong conclusion about what that term means? If a person is familiar with Christianity if a person is familiar with the

Bible and the church's teaching it would not be possible Because the church is very clear in their teaching that Mary is the mother of God the second person of the

Trinity so my question was whether someone who heard only the expression

Mary is the mother of God whether they could Come to the wrong conclusion From that particular wording in view of the fact that both the

Holy Spirit and the Father are also referred to as God well if somebody came if heard the term mother

Mary mother of God and Pretty much had no knowledge of the Bible or no knowledge of any church teaching

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even know who Mary was in that certain case and they'd have to do a little bit more research

And I'm pretty sure somebody came to the to uh to this term without any knowledge of God or or anything

They wouldn't even understand the doctrine of the Trinity, so I don't I don't find any sense in that kind of a question

That's an interesting point that leads me to my next question which was What is God is

God a being or a person It's got a being or a person

God is three persons in the Trinity I don't I don't quite understand if you mean if God is a being or a person there.

I stop right there There is absolutely no reason for this confusion if you have even the most basic understanding of the doctrine the

Trinity There is one true and eternal being of God the what of God that which makes

God God shared by three Co -equal co -eternal divine persons the

Father the Son and the Holy Spirit It's not difficult. It's not hard You would think it would be absolutely fundamental to anyone who is a apologist of any quote -unquote

Christian stripe to be aware of this But there's clearly confusion here now, maybe it's due to mr..

Albrecht going well You know I don't want to give him anything here to try to trap me You know and and I was talking to another fellow.

I'd listened to a debate. He had done on that Talking program that we don't talk about on on the program

I'm sorry No no yeah anyway, and and one of the things

I Tried to help him with in the debate he had done oftentimes

Even if you're on the right side of the issue You will allow yourself to be pushed in a position where you're defending something you have no business to be defending

That's not what was happening here, but maybe What's going on is that mr..

Albrecht is second -guessing himself, and he doesn't want to say something and someone gets it

You know one of those aha type things, but it clearly Demonstrates and documents and unfamiliarity and a lack of familiarity with a foundational issue and That's after and you know in a second.

There's going to be I think a 10 or 11 minute presentation All about Mary and all these early church fathers and while the reason

I want to play this was just to make the point What do Roman Catholics most talk about?

What are they most focused upon? It's not the foundational doctrines of the faith

It's not inerrancy of Scripture. It's not inspiration It's not God's revelation those ways

It's not the Trinity and the deity of Christ Resurrection things like that. It's these unique doctrines that are based upon tradition and in particular the massive exaltation of Mary to a position that No inspired author ever dreamed of I don't understand

What you're trying to get to with that type of question the just that you don't understand the distinction between a being and a person

And so yeah, I do. I do understand. I understand the doctrine of the Trinity and I understand I Understand the three persons there.

They're all God. I just don't understand what what you're getting to with a type of question I just answered it

God is three persons and one being Three persons sharing the one being that is

God. That's the doctrine the Trinity Turgeon fan wasn't trying anything fancy here He's gonna get to his point now.

You can see where he was going, but it again just just illustrates the problem Mike Mullen my question is isn't

God a being is God a being It's gotta be

As I suppose it would be it'd be it's a little bit confusing if God is a being I mean I would

I could know But it's not also be viewed in a in an unorthodox manner as well Okay now very clearly this is someone who is completely out of his element knows it and Is getting very nervous about it?

There's there's no question about now. That's how the debate is about but Turgeon's fan is trying to get to Illustrating which is what cross -examination supposed to be about and by the way when we listen to Albrecht's part we're gonna hear that one of these two follow the rules of cross -examination one did not how many times we heard that one before You ask questions during cross -examination

You make your point by the questions that you ask and the order in which you ask them and maybe even the way in which you ask them, but you don't argue your points and Turgeon fan isn't doing that you will see when we listen to another one that He's the only one following the rules at that point

Yes Is it true that Jesus is not only?

the son of Mary in Scripture, but he's also described in Scripture as the son of Joseph Absolutely, there's no contention there, but Joseph.

It's not his um his actual father. How about David isn't he also called the son of David? Absolutely we could uh we could easily call him the son of David and we could easily call him the son of Joseph as well

But we recognize a clear distinction that they are not they are not his actual father such as Joseph Wasn't his actual father the

Bible brings that out clearly is was Jesus literally in the line of David yes

So was David literally the ancestor of Jesus? Yes, so is it right to call

David the father or grandfather of God No, that would be completely different because in the sense of calling

Mary mother of God Once more I think you're confusing the terms clearly because we don't mean that she produced to God We're calling

Mary the mother of God because she bore God in her womb But why does that not change?

The point again you see mother of God was a Christological term because it had to do with Jesus not with Mary and He's gonna do this a number of times.

He's going to on the one point on the one hand refer over and over again to Mary is the mother of the

Lord the Mary of Is the mother of Jesus and so she's the mother of God because but then when pressed on that particular issue

Well, she didn't give rise to the Godhead She she only gave rise to the human aspect and and you're gonna if you listen to the whole thing

I'd recommend you do it's easy to find And like I said, I'll try to get the link up you'll see that that Something similar happened here is in my debate with Patrick Madrid where when you press one direction

Then they adopt one stance, but then when you press the other direction they adopt another stance It seems to be rather rampant amongst

Roman Catholic apologists With you had earlier stated that there is no distinction in the church fathers between Mary's relationship to his

Jesus humanity and Jesus divinity Have you considered the teachings of the order it on that subject?

I believe that in the same communication I'd given to you. I'd also mentioned the order it did you consider what he had said? Absolutely, and I never said that they don't they don't consider the distinction between the divinity and the humanity of Christ I just said that they never separate the fact that Mary gave birth to not only the divinity of Christ But the humanity because Christ is one united person

Okay. Thanks. I don't have any further questions. Okay, so there's the first cross -examination. So let's go to let's compare and contrast shall we?

The second cross -examination now, mr. Albrecht is asking questions of tourism fans

Alright church and fan How can you assume in the first chapter of Luke when the freight when we hear the phraseology mother of my

Lord? Used that it is not in reference to the deity in Mary's womb Okay, let's read the text because this is coming after the presentation

Luke 143 the context being Elizabeth back into Luke 141 when

Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting the baby leapt in her room and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she cried out with a loud voice and said blessed are you among women and blessed

Is the fruit of your womb and how has it happened to me at the mother of my Lord the mother of my Lord?

Would come to me for behold in the sound of your greeting reached my ears the baby leaped in my womb for joy and blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the

Lord and so Evidently the argument is well mother of my

Lord and then you you pour into Lord here this this massive understanding of Deity and everything else on the part of Elizabeth so that Elizabeth understands all this stuff long before Mary ever will because I mean

Clearly Mary is still figuring these things out even during the ministry of Jesus But somehow

Elizabeth has this all figured out from a baby leaping in her womb now you could say well Yeah, I was just given to her by the

Holy Spirit, but the point is they're reading into this term Lord this very very expanded

Concept that's what's behind this particular question and that had sort of come out in the in the presentations

The reason that we would conclude that it's not a specific and explicit reference to deity

Is that the term Lord is not an exclusively divine?

title Are you aware that the first chapter of Luke uses a term Lord good? He asked 17 times and all of them are references to God Even this one is a reference to God.

It's reference to Jesus Christ So yes, I would agree that it is in reference to deity in Mary's womb even though earlier you said that it was not

No, what I said was it's not a term that's used exclusively and explicitly of his divinity

Because so excuse me Well, I would agree that this isn't a reference to the deity in Mary's womb when we hear mother of my

Lord spoken by Elizabeth No, no, what I'm saying is it's in a reference to the person of Jesus Christ And so it is not in reference to the deity even though Luke uses the term 17 times in this first chapter and in verse 43 and 45

Elizabeth uses the same term and Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and you would have contend that the term is being used in a different sense

No, I'm I'm it's a personal tie. It's a personal title It refers to the exalted rank of the person who has the title and it is referring to the a person who is

God It is not an explicit reference to the divinity of the person So even though this term is used that many times by Luke in his first chapter

You would claim that this is the exception out of all the times that it is used now notice.

Mr Albrecht does not hear what's being said and this has been my greatest Criticism of mr.

Albrecht from the start is it doesn't matter what you say to him. He does not hear and there are non

Rashid Islamic apologists in London remember in the remember sure

Hopefully someday you will see this debate We played little portions of it You know that maybe all

I'll ever have is what I had in my little Casio camera if I can still find it but some someday And those of you who were there the two or three of you listening who might have been there

I'm not Rashid. I kept Saying one of my arguments in the debate was look at the time of the writing of the

Quran the doctrine of the Trinity Had already been defined No one in the year 600 had any reason to be confused the

Christological and Trinitarian controversies were a thing of the past so Why then does the

Quran misrepresent the doctrine of Trinity? I mean even if you disagree with the doctrine Trinity God knows what it was in the year 600

Okay, I made that statement in my opening presentation So he gets up and says look James White has just admitted that it took 600 years the doctrine the

Trinity developed That's not what I said, and so when I get my chance to get up.

I point out. That's that's not what I said What I said was if someone writing in the year 600

Represents doctrine the train does so errantly there is no reason for that because Everybody knew what it was by then that's that's

I didn't say that it took 600 years for develop So I plainly laid that out he gets up again.

He says it again. See he admitted again It took 600 years for it to develop, and I'm looking at people in the audience going are we speaking different languages and So I had the opportunity one more time during the question and answer

To raise that issue again and say he keeps misrepresenting me. Hopefully you hear what

I'm saying and People in the audience are going yeah, yeah, yeah, he gets up a third time and repeats the same statement

There are certain people it just doesn't matter how clearly or how plainly you put it they are not listening to you and William is one of them it doesn't matter what you say it doesn't matter what turns advances if he's gotten his idea and This is what he thinks you're you're supposed to say that's it

But that you can you can nuance it define it clarify does not matter

He doesn't listen to what you're saying and so what he's saying is well every use of Kodios in Luke one has to have the exact same referent and So Elizabeth has to be meaning the exact same thing and so I'm gonna

I'm gonna shoehorn I mean, this is what cat when it comes to Mary. This is the Roman Catholic way of activity.

I'm gonna shoehorn into Single words single uses.

I mean just look at at the use of kakar too many Blessed are you amongst women etc, etc?

Hi, Oh Highly favored one. However, you want to translate any of those terms?

They have imported boatloads of theology into those single terms

And if you don't follow them in that well, you know, that's just all there is to it No, I think it's being used the same way throughout

So you would agree that it is being used in a reference to the deity in Mary's womb Not in reference to a highly insulted person.

Am I correct? I don't think No, you're not correct. What I've been trying to tell you is that it's a personal title

It's refers it refers to the person and not to the nature Okay, I would disagree I think it's some clear reference to the deity because that bing bing bing bing bing rule violation rule violation.

This is cross -examination Mr. Albrecht, you don't make your points. Now. You make your points by your questions and let the audience

Judge on the basis of the answers provided you don't start doing this We need to provide a basic primer of debate rules for all

Roman Catholic apologists because if you want to hear the worst example of completely blowing off the rules listen to my debate with Tim Staples in the cross -examination period on papal infallibility from Fullerton in the year 2000 and You will hear someone taking the rules and throwing them out the window and that's what mr

Albrecht is doing right now. It's clearly keeping in tune with Luke's usage of courios But I would like to ask you another question church and fan

Can you show me one passage in the Bible where the usage of may tear? Obviously the Greek word for mother denotes being

Being the one that only brings forth a portion and of an individual's person now

Here is one of the most fallacious questions. I've ever heard because as turrets and fans about to point out we're talking about something absolutely positively unique in the incarnation and So he's asking for show me another example of something that's unique by definition.

That's absurd. I Mean he was the one Member when turrets and fans asking questions what that's an absurd question when he's asking about whether God is a being simple basic trinitarian theology and now he's asking or show me another example like this as if When something's unique you could even begin to do so if you could find me another

Person besides Jesus Christ who had more than humanity I might be able to fulfill your request

But Jesus Christ was unique in in the respect of having both humanity and divinity great

So can you show me a passage where uh if we clearly see that Mary was only the mother of Christ's human nature?

And see do you hear that? It's like turrets and fan. It's seriously is like the peanuts thing

For turrets and fan your response is more Ram Ram Ram Ram Ram Ram Ram, which is what all adults sound like to kids evidently according to a

Charlie Brown He could have said Orange feels fuzzy, and he would have continued right off with the same same line of thought because he's not hearing

He doesn't hear what he just said That's what makes it rather problematic to try to engage such folks, but I'm sure the

The the passage that I pointed you to was Hebrews 7 3 which says that Jesus is without father and without mother

Absolutely, and we would agree because Mary did not produce the the divine nature of Christ That's not a contention between us

But our contention is that Mary is the mother of God would and I believe she's the mother of God as a whole So I'm asking if you can show me one passage where the term in keeping consistent with the biblical terminology

Denotes being one that brings forth only a portion of one's person Yes, I Had you had just asked me that question a minute ago and what

I had told you was that the reason why I wouldn't be able to find anyone in a similar situation to Jesus in this regard is that Jesus incarnation is unique and therefore all other mothers give birth to the the humanity of their children, but They they conceive human beings in their womb is what all mothers that are human do and all mothers of animals bring forth after their kind as we see in Genesis, but the

And I suppose I could point you to Genesis as the example of that, but but otherwise I guess

I would I would agree. I just I completely disagree I can tell that you can't find a passage it shows this distinction and as such

I'll move on I'll ask you this ding ding ding another rules violation. Yes, indeed.

Thank you very much. Mr All are you were of any ancient Church Council that views Mary's role of mother in the way that you have expressed it

Yes, I think the Council of Ephesus that did view it that way and I'm happy to present some quotation if you'd like from Cyril who who talked about who talked at the

Council of Ephesus about them? Absolutely. I believe Cyril was quite clear in the fact that he believed that uh,

Mary did not produce the divinity of ding ding ding ding further rule Violations, this is not how you do cross -examination.

That's not a question. That's an argument and Again Even if William listens this it's not going to change anything in the future

Because you can you can explain it until the cows come home and for some reason

Roman Catholic apologists just don't get it Christ But Mary was indeed the mother of God the Theotokos She gave birth to God to Christ second person in the

Trinity as a whole And that's the end of the second cross -examination period.

So there you go A Few more comments on the other side of the break and then we'll go to our phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three

Three three, four one. We'll be right back Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool Which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter

Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files from your

Computer as well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program

This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage in Debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and That enables you to do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time you'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate the history of the

Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies Theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. Jay Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you All right a couple comments

Sort of said this before but I just want to summarize them two things primarily first the debate about the usefulness of the phrase mother of God Has to take into consideration the current situation that we face in the modern era

If you're dealing with Nestorians or something fine great Not too many people are dealing with the story in these days.

I suppose if you're dealing with the Assyrian Church, you might be but the reality is That so much has changed in the exaltation of Mary and especially in the dogmatic definition of Marian teaching

That the the term itself is no longer being used in its historical context

It has changed it has evolved it itself has become a method of exaltation and that is the the objection to it

Once you've defined such things as the immaculate conception the bodily assumptions of Mary once you have millions of petitions being turned into Rome by faithful Roman Catholics who want the

Roman Catholic Magisterium to define the fifth Marian dogma that Mary is the co -redemptrix and co -mediatrix advocate for the people of God, etc, etc

Obviously the phrase mother of God has to be Debated and understood in that context now and there is absolutely no question that the modern utilization of theatrical in the context of Rome's exaltation of Mary has led to massive amount of idolatry

No question about That has to be kept in mind and secondly here we see again

The imbalance of Roman Catholic apologists now, don't get me wrong. I could point to Protestant apologists that aren't overly balanced either but by definition given

The authority claims of Rome and the dogmas that she has defined in the modern era

It seems to me that Roman Catholic apologists are grossly out of line with biblical truths and Here when a simple question about the nature of the

Trinity was asked About whether God is a being You know one being shared by three persons classic definition

Mr. Albrecht doesn't know anything about that evidently now I can guarantee you within 12 hours

There will be a audio or a video on his YouTube channel talking all about how he's

Orthodox and the doctrine of Trinity knows all about this stuff because he can never admit I've never seen

William Albrecht admit that he yeah, you're right. I It's not an area. I've really studied.

That's not that's not William. It would be nice to see it'd be a step in the right direction maybe Maybe he'd like to read my book on the subject

But again, I've yet to see when I see a willingness on mr.

Albrecht to learn and to grow and to hear Great, but till then

I don't see it. So there you go Thanks to a Turreton fan for all he does and for his

Constant patience in such such situations eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Let's talk with Sean up in Las Vegas. Hi, Sean. How you doing? Dr. White doing good

How's my volume? I'm on a headphone. Oh, well, we can We can turn up our end, but if you can turn it up on your end, it'll probably help a little bit

It's a little bit low. Okay, what I'm Calling to ask about is I've been partaking in a debate with some

Mormons on a on a blog site And I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the ministry. It's MRM. I think he did a spoke for them at their

Compassionate boldness conference this year. Yeah Anyway, that's the website where it's going on.

Yeah, it's going on blog dot MRM dot org. Okay. Yeah. All right okay, anyways, well this last set of Topics was about the book of Abraham back similist specifically

And about whether or not Joseph Smith actually translated them correctly And of course, there's so much evidence that he didn't do them correctly

So one of the biggest things is these Mormon posters were kept on saying that we that Abraham lived in Egypt and so I know obviously from Genesis 11 and 12

We have very little information about what actually took place while he was in Egypt, right? So I I went to the

Genesis accounts and reread them again Noticing that he came obviously from the earth of Chaldea, which we also know from Joshua 24 2 and So I started reading the book of Abraham again

It's been a long time since I read it and I was immediately struck with the fact that we find in chapter 1 we find

Abraham in or of Chaldea, but we also find the Egyptians in or of Chaldea We find the

Pharaoh there. We find the priest of Elkenna there. And so looking at geography We can see that or of Chaldea is about 900 miles to the east.

Okay, no bad back up the track here just a second here and What verse are you looking at in the book of Abraham that would say that In my hand,

I hope you are impressed by that some I have a quad in my hand I hope that you are impressed by that.

You know, you know the quad is right? Yeah, I know Well, first of all, we have verse 20.

It says behold The altar was on Potiphar's Hill because I'm earlier in the chapter verse says behold

Potiphar's Hill was in the land of er of Chaldea and the Lord broke down the altar of Elkenna and the gods the land and utterly destroyed them and Smote the priest that he died and there was a great morning in Chaldea and also.

Yeah. Yeah Signifies being by royal blood and I went wait a second This is

I mean, I didn't see it before but now I saw it immediately because I've been studying the map And I was like they have the king of the pharaoh of Egypt and these priests in Chaldea, what are they doing?

Practicing Egyptian religion in Chaldea and now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of him and was a partaker of the blood of the

Canaanites By birth from this descent sprang all the Egyptians and thus the blood of the

Canaanites was preserved in the land right And first of all in the beginning verses we have

Abraham's father Tara. We have him Being idolatrous and worshipping the gods of the

Egyptians, which of course he wouldn't do if he's living in her so Basically, there's no way to refute the fact that Joseph Smith got this whole

He must have believed that er of Chaldea was in Egypt or near Egypt.

Yep, which of course it's not so In typical LDS fashion instead of answering my my assertion.

Well, you want you want something more to substantiate that? notice the

Verse 13 and I'm just looking I'm just looking at the text here It was made out the form of a bedstead such as was had among the

Chaldeans and it stood before the gods of al -qaena Libna Mamakra Qorosh and also a godlike under that of Pharaoh king of Egypt now turn one page back or in your text page back and under the first facsimile in the book of Abraham Which we know is from the

Egyptian book of the dead right you have a figure for The altar for sacrifice by the adulterous priest saying for the gods of al -qaena

Libna Mac macro Qorosh and Pharaoh, right? So you have a direct connection to what is clearly a

Embalming scene in in the Egyptian book of the dead being connected with what's going on in Chaldea in verse 13

Posters and I feel really bad about ridiculing them but They keep on saying that we didn't have all of the we don't we don't possess the actual facsimiles that Joseph Smith used

To translate the book of Abraham, but right here in verse 14 It says that you may have understanding of these gods.

I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning Referring to the facsimile now somebody who was who was writing and who was writing in the form of hieroglyphics

Why would they refer to a picture in their writing? Doesn't make any sense, but that's nothing in Mormon doesn't make sense

Nothing in the attempts to make what is clearly the book of breathings in the

Egyptian book of the dead Into a scripture of Abraham makes any sense at all.

There's there's there is absolutely no question of this it is the fatal flaw of Joseph Smith's claims of priesthood and prophethood and the explanations that have been produced

By LDS apologists Absolutely bend your mind

The things they have to deny the Egyptian alphabet and grammar. They have to throw that under the bus They have to do what they're doing and saying to you.

Oh, well, you know these these The things we have they don't match up. Well, they do match up There's no question that they match up as far as when you look at the

Egyptian alphabet and grammar You'll look at the papyri that have been discovered have been photographed and the facsimiles are in the book of Abraham There is no question.

We're talking about the same stuff and they know it So I have two questions for the first ones theological

We know that in Matthew 13 Jesus He condemns the

Pharisees For blaspheming the Holy Spirit by claiming that the works that were done by him casting out a demon

We're actually the work of Beelzebub Because our hearts have become so hardened that they could attribute the work of God to the work of Beelzebub He said that they had blasphemed the

Holy Spirit Now in the Mormons when they harden their hearts and do not see that this book of Abraham is complete and total fraud

In fact, they say that is scripture. We know that all scriptures give but given by inspiration of God, right?

we also know that first second Peter 121 says that that Men wrote is there moved by the or spoke as they moved by the

Holy Spirit when they claim that this is scripture And it obviously lies and contradicts biblical scripture.

Have they indeed committed the same kind of blasphemy? I would answer no, and I'll tell you why

The context that I understand of the unpardonable sin in Matthew is dealing with the scribes and Pharisees who possess

The entirety of the Word of God and nothing but that now they do have their traditions, but they didn't call that scripture

They're there. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it is not demonstrative of tremendous spiritual danger and spiritual darkness

I mean anybody who thinks that God was once a man lived on another planet and that we can become gods like God is a

God is clearly far far far away from the Christian faith and and Far far away from the

Holy Spirit of God and all those other things quite true a hundred percent But I'm just trying to be consistent in that my understanding of the unpardonable sin is due to the great light that the

Pharisees had and yet they were so twisted in their hatred of The Son of God that they could call what was white black and black white now

There is you could you can make that connection to all forms of idolatry, but the Bible doesn't make that connection to the idolatrous

Activities of the pagan people so it doesn't use that same type of condemnation Even though you could

I suppose argue that given the clarity of God's revelation in general relation They are doing the same thing.

I think that the scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses's seat holding to those scriptures claiming to be the the the descendants of Abraham and Moses on so forth

Created a special instance where their blindness was a was a particular kind of judgment from God So I wouldn't make that connection, but I would say

That to possess the Bible. I mean I met you I mentioned to you. I'm sitting here holding a quad, okay?

For those who don't know what a quad is a quad is the King James Version of the Bible Book of Mormon doctrine covers Poor guy price bound as one volume.

It is thick it is Probably a weapon if you were to swing at somebody and They do possess the scriptures, and they will be held accountable for that, but they possess the scriptures with these

Idolatrous false deceptive books bound together with it and That's that's why you know my heart continues to go out to those young men when

I see them riding by because they have just been given such a false hope and There is no connection whatsoever between the spirit that they claim to experience and the

Holy Spirit of God because The one does not testify that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer and things like that Okay, my next question is you may know because you've done many many debates, and I've never come across this before But in giving that assertion of course they sidestep the issue and they want to go to extra biblical support for the book of Abraham And so they have questions such as well

You know verse 23 of book Abraham chapter 1 tells us that it was found by a woman They said that they claim that there are extra biblical support for the fact that it was it was founded by a woman

And that's also that was founded in that Egypt at one time was submerged underwater when it was founded

Extra biblical support for them supposedly that Abraham lived in Egypt for a significant amount of time taught the royalty

Astronomy All that stuff. Have you heard any of that stuff before or know where I can find these citations because they won't give them obviously

Well, well that you'd have to ask for it because while I have not heard of those claims

I am preparing and have just started preparing Really seriously for my debate with Dan Barker in a couple of weeks on the uniqueness of Jesus and one of the key arguments

That people use as well, you know, you look at Osiris you look at Horace and The idea of drawing parallels as if they are supportive of a thesis

You can find almost anything almost anywhere if you want to ignore the context from which it's coming and so it is a my experience that especially

BYU scholars Like Daniel C. Peterson and William Hamlin and Rick's and the others

Are very very quick to try to draw parallels they've abused the early church fathers grossly in trying to draw parallels between various early writings and Their own beliefs at that point and so while I am not familiar with those particular claims, for example the thing about water

The whole cycle of life in in Egypt was based upon the flooding of the

Nile and So you're gonna find all sorts of stuff about water flooding and everything else in regards to Egypt no, no question about it.

You need to find out. Well, what who is this woman that they claim? Is it the same one?

Is this supposed to be a god? Does this have to do with the flooding of the Nile? And ask for specific documentation because you will find all sorts of stuff

I mean I I cannot tell you how many people will tell you that Mithra had 12 disciples and was born in December 25th

And when you go, can you document that out? I mean from actual Historical sources not from some

New Age Wackoid that's writing today, but can you give me the actual references to?

Historical documents that will tell me that and they stare at you. Oh Well, but everybody knows that No, I don't know that.

So why don't you why don't you give me the actual documentation? So You're gonna have to ask for that kind of specific documentation

And one thing's for certain Egypt was discovered by one of two kinds of people a

Male or a female is a 50 -50 chance one way or the other on something like that. So yeah, you know

It is sort of sad when you when you see people faced with such blatant and Obvious error and especially to get into the

Egyptian alphabet and grammar and I know I'm not telling you anything You don't already know I can tell you you've looked in this stuff But a lot of people listening have never even heard the

Book of Abraham when you look into especially the Egyptian alphabet of grammar and see And a translation of dozens of words from a single symbol

By Joseph Smith and those words end up in the Book of Abraham You are clearly dealing with someone who did not have a clue

What they were doing with ancient Egyptian and they were just pretending to be a prophet and this is not the first time this has

Happened. It's just so happens. This one has 13 million followers today and And hundreds of millions, yeah, yeah, no question about it.

No question about it. So well, thank you for your time. Dr Why I appreciate your your answers in your discussion. Well, I appreciate the fact you're out there seeking to to deal with these folks and no matter how

Unkind you might be treated or how blind you may feel those people are with whom you're speaking

My experience has always been that you know, we used to go out to the Macy's to pageant we were out there last year and I Really enjoyed doing that work.

I enjoyed witnessing to people but so many times it wasn't the the louder person

I was talking to that was listening to me. It was a person standing five feet away leaning up against a tree

Reading a web forum, whatever it might be They're the ones who come to you three years later and go you started me on my journey.

I've been saved there's a situation and you just that's what gives you the patience to put up with the barbs to put up with the you know the twisted thinking and And everything else that you get when you're encountering people who are just desperate to hold on to their their belief

I think rich wanted to add something Yeah before you go Sean I do want to mention that on our website in the vintage section under Mormonism You're gonna find our tract men is not

God. It's Okay, and for those folks out there who may not be that familiar with The the whole subject matter this track can be a big eye -opener

For you. So again, it's called the min true. Well minute is not God Min and it is in the

Mormonism section of our vintage Publications. There you go. Okay, one more thing real quick.

Yeah, like you said, I know what I'm doing this those postings I'm actually writing to those who are not partaking because most people will never

Take the step to partake right? So if you're if you're a Christian and you're involved with some kind of apologetic research

Whatever it be witnesses or whatever else get involved on something like that because you don't know who's listening You don't know who's watching and reading.

Hey, Sean Yeah, any chance that carry shirts might be on this web board that you're dealing with Who is it carry shirts, you know,

I don't know everybody a lot of people use Nick's so I don't know right now He's one of the defenders the book of Abraham But you you literally have to deprive your brain of oxygen for about three minutes where you can figure out what is actually being said

It's it's just that twisted. It's just amazing the lengths that people go to it's just it's just shocking

But anyway, keep it up. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. God bless. Bye. Bye. Yeah, man is not God I will never forget the first time we passed that tracked out people look at me go men.

Don't you mean man? It's not a typo. No, no, no read it. You'll see and that was was that the first time we did the backwards routine on the priesthood line,

I think it may have been because You'd get this this line of people waiting to go into the priesthood meeting in the afternoon

It was evening. Well a certain kind of people. Yeah, all men all guys white shirts dark ties everywhere

JC Penney convention and We finally figured out the best way to do this was to pass out the tracks

From the back of the line. We walk the line and the line would wrap around the entire block

We took the duck hunting approach if you shoot the one in the front the rest scatter exactly exactly

Go after the ones in the back and the ones in the front don't see you Exactly because if if we had learned long ago that when they would see you

Well, they would see someone in front of them rejecting a track that raised the possibility that they would reject the track

So since most of them be facing one direction We started the back so that people would not see anybody else rejecting a track and I don't know how many

I think we ran Out of them. We I mean we we passed out bazillions of them and then

I remember as we left we drove around Temple Square and We could not believe how many people were staying there reading that tract and we were just rejoicing because we knew

That if they take that information their leaders their leaders have no answers because every single citation in the tract is from LDS authorities and scholars my recollection is that we had like teams of two and you'd

Start passing out in one section and then the other group would pass that group and start passing out

And then we just kind of flip -flop all the way down and do it as quickly as we could before everybody We could do that before the

King James only fundamentalist Baptist Showed up up there men who are ignorant to the book of Abraham men who never produce anything like men is not

God or letters to a Mormon elder anything's like that and Destroy those opportunities and they will be held accountable for the fact that they are the ones who shut down that work they will be and Anybody who supports them will be held accountable

For their behavior and their action those those folks are a blight and a plague upon the

LDS people because they they cause them to turn away from the truth by their outrageous behavior and their ignorance of the subjects that they should be addressing

That is without a question. But anyway Book of Abraham if you want to read simply one of the best books ever written on the subject and there's

I believe a film from The religion be that it were to go here.

Well, that's the name of it now the day that the Institute for Religious Research Charles Larson's book by his own hand upon papyrus beautiful fold out of the papyri themselves that you can look at for yourself

But an excellent discussion and once you have familiarized yourself with the reality

Then you read the LDS attempts to get around the book of Abraham and oh

My my my it is truly Amazing. Thanks for listening to the buying line today.

We'll be back Lord willing on Thursday. I will be listening to a discussion that Mr.

Dr. Beckwith had at Wheaton just a few days ago. Hopefully on my ride tomorrow I already have it queued up to play play sections of it on Thursday.

So join us then. We'll see you then. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at P o box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks