Speaker 1: Bring out the handle, its superstamped exclusions through the dame
Speaker 1: showing out inside.
Speaker 2: Hey, everybody, tonight we're debating tradition versus solo scriptura, and
Speaker 2: we are starting right now with Jay's opening statement. Thanks
Speaker 2: for being with us, Jay, The floor is all yours.
Speaker 1: Okay, just one second. I have one thing I'm pulling
Speaker 1: up here from something I wrote for opening statement. Here.
Speaker 1: Can you give me just one second before we start this.
Speaker 1: I just needed this one piece of data here for
Speaker 1: the opening statement.
Speaker 2: It's you got it, no problem.
Speaker 1: This is hard to find here.
Speaker 2: This is a great opportunity for me. I can fill
Speaker 2: that time easily. Folks. First, if it's your first time
Speaker 2: here at modern a Debate, I'm your host, Doctor James
Speaker 2: Cooon's weary, fully neutral platform, hosting debates on science, religion,
Speaker 2: and politics at that subscribe button. As we have many
Speaker 2: more debates coming up, including at the bottom right of
Speaker 2: your screen. Debate con eight this summer in Dallas, Texas.
Speaker 2: We're expecting it to for sure sell out. Check out
Speaker 2: the tickets link in the description box. It will include
Speaker 2: debates such as Dnestusuza versus Andrew Wilson, as well as
Speaker 2: god a logic, apologetics versus Muslim Daniel Haikikachu, and many
Speaker 2: other debates. Rachel Wilson will be taking on not So
Speaker 2: Airdite on the effects of feminism, as well as Andrew
Speaker 2: Wilson taking on Loader Box on whether or not Trump
Speaker 2: is a fascist. You don't want to miss it. Click
Speaker 2: on that link right now. Check out the full debate
Speaker 2: card and book your travel early. Keep in mind, look
Speaker 2: at your calendar because before you plan your schedule, you
Speaker 2: want to go to this conference.
Speaker 1: Ready for you, Jay, if you are, you said, we're
Speaker 1: doing ten minutes opening, yep, okay, all right. So when
Speaker 1: we come to the question of solo scripture versus the
Speaker 1: question of tradition, the first argument I'm going to make
Speaker 1: is that the Bible itself, the accepted texts that between
Speaker 1: Orthodox and most Protestants we agree on those texts themselves,
Speaker 1: actually point outside of the text. When it comes to
Speaker 1: the notion of sacred tradition also being the Word of God.
Speaker 1: All Protestant arguments generally wrest in the assumption that it's
Speaker 1: only the written texts that are the Word, and that
Speaker 1: is not the Word himself, that is a divine person
Speaker 1: that thus makes themselves known through the medium of written texts,
Speaker 1: and so if this argument fails, then the entire notion
Speaker 1: that we only listen to the written texts is refuted
Speaker 1: then by the written text themselves. My goal is to
Speaker 1: then open the minds of everybody here to this foundational
Speaker 1: Protestant presupposition. There is overwhelming evidence that, for example, from
Speaker 1: Genesis one up until the time of Moses, the tradition
Speaker 1: was passed on orally. So there's nothing inherently flawed or
Speaker 1: bad necessarily about oral teaching because God was able to
Speaker 1: preserve the oral teaching from the time of Adam up
Speaker 1: to Abraham and up to Moses, and that counts as
Speaker 1: several hundreds of years, and so God's providence is not
Speaker 1: in any way impugned by the fact that it's oral
Speaker 1: versus something being written. As we move on, when we
Speaker 1: look at specific examples in the Old Testament, we noticed
Speaker 1: that the patriarchs author Genesis kept this oral tradition and
Speaker 1: then passed it down and then eventually, for example, the
Speaker 1: time of David, we read in Second Chronicles twenty nine
Speaker 1: that he stationed the levites in the House of the
Speaker 1: Lord with symbols, stringed instruments and harps according to the
Speaker 1: commandment of David of God the King's seer, and of Nathan.
Speaker 1: For thus was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets,
Speaker 1: the Levites with instruments of David, and the priests with
Speaker 1: their trumpets. We do not have any written record of
Speaker 1: what David commanded concerning these things. Furthermore, it is clear
Speaker 1: that David flourished some two hundred and fifty years before
Speaker 1: the time of King has a Kaya. It must be
Speaker 1: argued then that this was David's opinion if you're a Protestant,
Speaker 1: because we don't know that this was involved in any
Speaker 1: written description as far as we can tell, because these
Speaker 1: books have actually been lost. But we know that in
Speaker 1: the Book of Leviticus, if you read Leviticus ten and eleven,
Speaker 1: you'll note that native and a bay who are actually
Speaker 1: killed for making up how we would worship God. So
Speaker 1: God doesn't tolerate the idea of Diy making it up worship. Thus,
Speaker 1: there had to have been an oral tradition that David
Speaker 1: knew or passed down that was the basis for the
Speaker 1: organizing of this liturgical worship. Also, note that for most
Speaker 1: Reformed people or Protestants in general, many of them will
Speaker 1: actually make a very similar argument about how we worship
Speaker 1: God in the New Testament, for example, the Reforms. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if this person is a Calvinist or
Speaker 1: Reformed or not, but many Reformed Baptists or Calvinists have
Speaker 1: what they believe as is a regular principle of worship.
Speaker 1: I'm just using this as an example. Maybe he doesn't
Speaker 1: believe in this, but the regulative principle for many Protestant
Speaker 1: states that you can only do in worship what God
Speaker 1: specifically commands and lays down. However, in the New Testament documents,
Speaker 1: we do not have any specific pattern of how an
Speaker 1: entire worship service is to be conducted. Thus, when we
Speaker 1: read the Apostolic Fathers, for example, we notice that they
Speaker 1: do mention the pattern of worship. They speak of the Eucharist,
Speaker 1: they speak of episcopacy, they speak of deacons, they speak
Speaker 1: of an altar, all things missing in Protestant churches for
Speaker 1: the most part. Do we seriously believe that when the
Speaker 1: New Testament teachers and apostles preached that their preaching wasn't
Speaker 1: the word of God. Peter himself says, the word of
Speaker 1: God which was preached to you, showing us that it
Speaker 1: is not restricted only to the written text. Protestants, for example,
Speaker 1: will cite Isaiah eight and say to the law and
Speaker 1: to the testimony. But many commentators, including Protestants, will note
Speaker 1: that this testimony is also including the oral tradition. We
Speaker 1: read in the Old Testament about the Book of the
Speaker 1: Wars of the Lord, the Book of the Just, we
Speaker 1: read about the Book of Nathan the Prophet. We read
Speaker 1: about all kinds of books and proverbs and things that
Speaker 1: were written down which were not ultimately included in the
Speaker 1: canonical texts. For example, if we look at the case
Speaker 1: of the Visions of Adom the Prophet against Jeroboam, we
Speaker 1: have a true prophet prophesying against the evil king Jeroboam.
Speaker 1: This is obviously from the Lord. But where is the
Speaker 1: written law about this prophetic incident? Note also that the
Speaker 1: undisputed Old Testament text itself is directing us to these
Speaker 1: books as references. On the Protestant model, we would have
Speaker 1: the infallible referencing something foul, because most of them will say,
Speaker 1: if they admit that the oral teaching is the word
Speaker 1: of God, it was somehow fallible. But now we have
Speaker 1: the infallible written referencing the fallible. This is absurd. Again,
Speaker 1: we see that they did not have solo scriptura in
Speaker 1: the Old Testament, since Isaiah eight twenty to twenty one
Speaker 1: mandates also going to the testimony. But all of these prophecies,
Speaker 1: for example Obadiah or others, are called the word of
Speaker 1: the Lord. Rather the written law and the oral testimony
Speaker 1: of the prophets was considered the word of the Lord.
Speaker 1: And thus it is because the Word is a person.
Speaker 1: As Jesus says to the Pharisees, usearch the scriptures because
Speaker 1: you think that is in them the of eternal life.
Speaker 1: When is theay the batter witness of me? Protestants are
Speaker 1: actually judaized heretics who rely on a Judaic Talmudic interpretation
Speaker 1: and understanding of texts as if they are themselves divine
Speaker 1: or God. And I'm not saying they're not inspired, because
Speaker 1: I do believe inspiration. But the Orthodox Church does not
Speaker 1: believe that the texts themselves are God. They are the
Speaker 1: Bible is a created medium of transmitting the knowledge of God.
Speaker 1: It itself is not divine. In the New Testament, we
Speaker 1: have many examples as well of this same principle. For example,
Speaker 1: we are told that John says that if it were
Speaker 1: to be collected into one book, you could never collect
Speaker 1: everything that Jesus did or said into a book, because
Speaker 1: it would take all the books in the world. And
Speaker 1: this is John twenty verse thirty. I assume me that's
Speaker 1: what John twenty verse thirty says. That there are many
Speaker 1: other things that he did and said, and then twenty
Speaker 1: one verse twenty five says that all the books in
Speaker 1: the world couldn't contain all of this. And then we have,
Speaker 1: for example, statements that Paul says very clearly to the
Speaker 1: Thessalonians and second Thesalonians to keep the oral traditions. It's
Speaker 1: a standing command whether I delivered what I delivered to you,
Speaker 1: whether oral or written. So we have a standing command,
Speaker 1: according to Saint Paul. First Theessalonians too, Paul said, for
Speaker 1: this reason, we thank God without ceasing, because you receive
Speaker 1: the word of God which you heard from us. So
Speaker 1: the oral teaching of the apostles is the word of
Speaker 1: God as well. This alone really undoes the majority of
Speaker 1: the out of context and low tier quote minding that
Speaker 1: most Solar scriptur proponents do. That's why Paul also says
Speaker 1: to keep the oral traditions, and to Timothy, he says
Speaker 1: the second Timoty one thirteen, hold fast the pattern of
Speaker 1: the sound words you heard from me, that is not
Speaker 1: against the scriptures. And certainly when Jesus says the Matthew
Speaker 1: twenty three that the scribes and Pharisees create traditions of
Speaker 1: men that supplant the scriptures. In that same chapter, he
Speaker 1: also talks about the scribes of Pharisees sitting in the
Speaker 1: seat of Moses, and thus they have the authority of Moses.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in the Old Testament about moses stolic succession
Speaker 1: or a seat of Moses. Jesus is referring to a
Speaker 1: valid Old Testament tradition, and he's rejecting the scribes and
Speaker 1: Pharisees invalid tradition. As we move into the Early Church,
Speaker 1: for example, we learned that the Early Church did not
Speaker 1: have for many centuries a written New Testament. Texts I
Speaker 1: have with me here and I can pull it up
Speaker 1: if we need to. Multiple canons of scripture amongst the
Speaker 1: Church fathers for centuries, and by the fourth century the
Speaker 1: entire Church east and West West being represented by the
Speaker 1: Council of Rome under Pope Damasis, including the dutercanonical texts
Speaker 1: as part of the normative official canon of that time
Speaker 1: under the Latin patriarcht and in the East under the
Speaker 1: Apostolic Canons. The very last few canons cover the canon
Speaker 1: of scripture according to the entire Eastern Church normative for
Speaker 1: the East in canon law by the fourth century. Guess
Speaker 1: what they include the duter canonical texts. Now, we don't
Speaker 1: think that it was even solidified at that point, and
Speaker 1: many Protestants, including James White in his recent debate with
Speaker 1: tran Horne, were forced to admit that the canon of
Speaker 1: the Early Church was incote. It was unformed in the
Speaker 1: Early Church for many centuries, was not operating on the
Speaker 1: principle of solar scripture. Well, if that's the case, then
Speaker 1: solo scriptura was not true in those centuries, And if
Speaker 1: it wasn't true in those centuries, it's actually the Protestants
Speaker 1: that are adding faking gay new doctrines and teachings of
Speaker 1: men because the Church didn't have solo scriptura as its
Speaker 1: operating principle. Beyond that, also, I would add that when
Speaker 1: you get into the history of the foundation of the
Speaker 1: formation of the canon, you'll note that many Protestant scholars,
Speaker 1: and I when I was Protestant, I read all these texts,
Speaker 1: for example Lee McDonald who lists all the different canons
Speaker 1: of Scripture according to bearing Church fathers or F. F. Bruce,
Speaker 1: they all recognized the role that liturgy and tradition played
Speaker 1: in the formation of the canon. And so I will
Speaker 1: end it with saying that, according to this person that
Speaker 1: is that I'm debating with, he has no argument for
Speaker 1: why we ought to accept as normative the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Much for that opening, and we're going to kick it
Speaker 2: over to Pastor Jonathan. But first, as you can see
Speaker 2: the bottom right of your screen, Modern Day Debate has
Speaker 2: launched on TikTok. If you hang out on TikTok, check
Speaker 2: out our link pinned at the top of the chat
Speaker 2: end in the description box, where you can find clips
Speaker 2: from Juicy Debates. With that, we're gonna kick it over
Speaker 2: to Pastor Jonathan for his opening as well. The floor
Speaker 2: is all yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much James for allowing me to be
Speaker 3: on the show and to represent the Bible, the Word
Speaker 3: of God. And I want to start with a verse
Speaker 3: in Colossians chapter one, verse number eighteen. The Bible says
Speaker 3: about Christ that he is the head of the body
Speaker 3: the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
Speaker 3: that in all things he might have the pre eminence. Really,
Speaker 3: this debate is around authority and understanding that Christ is
Speaker 3: the final authority. If Christ is the head of the Church,
Speaker 3: then we ought to obey Christ and appeal to Christ.
Speaker 3: Since Christ is not physically with us on earth, he
Speaker 3: has left us obviously his word, and we can reference
Speaker 3: his word. If Christ is infallible, then his word is infallible.
Speaker 3: Therefore we appeal to Scripture as being infallible. And so
Speaker 3: if you elevate tradition, if you elevate church authority to
Speaker 3: be on par with or usurp the authority of Christ,
Speaker 3: well now we no longer have the correct body. The
Speaker 3: correct body is Christ as the head, meaning that we
Speaker 3: have to have Scripture as our final authority.
Speaker 4: The question is what is scripture?
Speaker 3: Of course, the Bible teaches that God's word is forever,
Speaker 3: O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven. The Bible
Speaker 3: teaches that there's no such thing as a time when
Speaker 3: the word came into existence. The word has always existed
Speaker 3: in the beginning. Was the word and the Word was
Speaker 3: with God, and the Word was God. There's never been
Speaker 3: a time when which the Word did not exist. The
Speaker 3: Word of God is eternal, and so therefore, just like
Speaker 3: God is eternal, we only appeal to that which is divine,
Speaker 3: to that which is eternal, to that which is unchanging.
Speaker 1: We look at church tradition, when.
Speaker 3: We look at what it's Catholic or Orthodox, these are
Speaker 3: constantly changing. And really, if we really think about this argument,
Speaker 3: we both agree that the sixty six books that I hold.
Speaker 4: In my King James Bible are the word of God.
Speaker 3: Really, I just disagree with him and think that the
Speaker 3: Apocrypha is the word of God. I deny that it
Speaker 3: is on par with scripture. It could be used for
Speaker 3: historical understanding, but it's not the word of God. I
Speaker 3: disagree that his church is infallible, as we see many
Speaker 3: churches in the New Testament having serious error, not just
Speaker 3: a little bit of error, serious error. At no point
Speaker 3: do we see any church being infallible. There's no verse
Speaker 3: teaching of this infallible church. There's no teaching about his
Speaker 3: specific Orthodox church. There's no table of contents to tell
Speaker 3: us which church to pick out of the Orthodox Coptic, Russian, Greek, Roman.
Speaker 4: Catholic, so we basically just have to trust them.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, the churches are
Speaker 3: not the one that has the authority.
Speaker 4: It's the Scripture that has the authority.
Speaker 3: Scripture gives a authority to the church is the church's
Speaker 3: responsibility to simply receive and recognize God's word.
Speaker 4: One of the tests that the Bible gives us about
Speaker 4: knowing what God's.
Speaker 1: Word is is that the Scripture teaches that we will
Speaker 1: hear the voice of the shepherd.
Speaker 3: Jesus Christ said my sheep, hear my voice. He says
Speaker 3: that we're not going to follow a stranger. Another test
Speaker 3: the Bible gives us in the Book of Deuteronomy is
Speaker 3: that when someone presumes to speak a word in the
Speaker 3: name of the Lord, and it comes not to pass
Speaker 3: to disregard that particular word. So we understand that the
Speaker 3: word of God is going to match reality. It's going
Speaker 3: to match what divine voice that we hear in the scripture.
Speaker 3: It's going to have internal consistency. The Bible teaches the
Speaker 3: scripture cannot be broken. The Bible tells us we're supposed
Speaker 3: to compare spiritual with spiritual, so you know, there's several
Speaker 3: different tests that we could employ to understand what truly
Speaker 3: is the word of God.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day.
Speaker 3: You know, people will scoff at the idea that the
Speaker 3: Scripture has this divine voice. But we can tell the
Speaker 3: difference between Doctor Seuss and Shakespeare. There's a gigantic difference
Speaker 3: between these two texts. And if God were to write
Speaker 3: a book or to speak, there would be a gigantic
Speaker 3: difference between God's word and man's word. Therefore, it is
Speaker 3: evident when God speaks as opposed to when man speaks,
Speaker 3: the sixty six books of the Bible that we have
Speaker 3: has the divine voice. It's recognized through God's people, through
Speaker 3: the Holy Ghost, my sheep hear my voice. And really
Speaker 3: we talk about Protestant or Orthodox or Catholic, we all agree.
Speaker 4: On the sixty six books being scripture.
Speaker 1: Where we disagree is that Jay believes that the apocrypha
Speaker 1: is scripture.
Speaker 4: I don't believe that. He believes that his church is infallible.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that, and I believe he has no
Speaker 3: verses to point to that. Why would I disagree with
Speaker 3: their apocrypha? Well, it has not been received by all Christians. Historically,
Speaker 3: it is not have the divine voice, it was not
Speaker 3: preserved in the Hebrew, It's not in eternally consistent. It
Speaker 3: has many different historical and factual errors in the Apocryphy specifically. Additionally,
Speaker 3: it teaches a weird salvation. It teaches that alms giving
Speaker 3: purges away from every sin. This doesn't match reality, and
Speaker 3: it doesn't produce the type of fruit that the King
Speaker 3: James Bible has produced. The Bible says by their fruits,
Speaker 3: she shall know them. The Bible teaches that wisdom is
Speaker 3: justified of her children. We can see the evident fruit
Speaker 3: of the King James Bible of those who have adhere
Speaker 3: to Scripture alone and put that at the top of
Speaker 3: their church. What's interesting is the Protestant Reformation is not
Speaker 3: defined by one singular individual, and we don't appeal to
Speaker 3: one particular individual.
Speaker 4: We don't have a cult leader like Joseph.
Speaker 3: Smith or perhaps Muhammad or other false religions. We simply
Speaker 3: all read the scripture and come to the same conclusions.
Speaker 3: And what is that conclusion? That Christ is the head
Speaker 3: of the Church. Of course, why did the Protestant Reformation
Speaker 3: even happen. The Catholic Church had corrupted itself. It was
Speaker 3: teaching new doctrines. Jay will even agree with me on this.
Speaker 3: And when you looked at Scripture, the plain reading was
Speaker 3: in clear contradiction to the Catholic Church.
Speaker 4: So who's right?
Speaker 1: Well, Jesus Christ told us that the Pharisees they had
Speaker 1: elevated their tradition over the word of God.
Speaker 3: And he said, you full well reject the word of
Speaker 3: God that you may keep your own tradition. That's what
Speaker 3: the Catholics have done, and that's what the Orthodox have
Speaker 3: done in the same way, adding things to the text.
Speaker 3: So at the end of the day, we have to
Speaker 3: ask the question, who's the final authority minus scripture? Jays
Speaker 3: would be a bunch of Orthodox bishops or some council
Speaker 3: or some synod. At the end of the day, he
Speaker 3: might try to claim that our belief is circular. But
Speaker 3: at the end day you have to appeal to something.
Speaker 3: I appeal the scriptures my final authority. Jay appeals to
Speaker 3: his Orthodox Church.
Speaker 4: How did he come to that conclusion?
Speaker 3: I have no idea, because the Bible doesn't teach it whatsoever,
Speaker 3: and so therefore I reject it. Why do I come
Speaker 3: to the conclusion about the Bible well, it tells me
Speaker 3: it's the word of God. I've tested it, proved it,
Speaker 3: and it's been evident to me that it is the
Speaker 3: word of God. When I compare other texts, they don't
Speaker 3: pass the exact same tests.
Speaker 2: You got it. Thank you very much for that opening
Speaker 2: as well, folks, if you didn't know, Modern at Debate
Speaker 2: has a discord joined sixteen thousand active members in the
Speaker 2: debate arena at the Modern Databate discord pinned at the
Speaker 2: top of the chat end in the description box. Right now,
Speaker 2: with that, we're gonna jump into the open dialogue. Gentlemen,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna give you a ton of freedom. If it
Speaker 2: gets to be where there's too much speaking over each other,
Speaker 2: I'm going to jump in and maybe make it ninety
Speaker 2: second responses, But otherwise the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Ah. Yeah. It's interesting because all I heard was
Speaker 1: a series of personal subjective appeals and fallacies and begging
Speaker 1: the question about what was in question, which is in
Speaker 1: my opening statement, I said that you had no basis
Speaker 1: for any normative authority to bind you or anyone else
Speaker 1: to the Protestant canon. And it's also interesting that Paul himself,
Speaker 1: in first tim of the three fifteen says the church
Speaker 1: is the pillar and ground of truth, which is the
Speaker 1: very thing that you denied, saying that, No, it's the
Speaker 1: written texts that are the pillar and ground of truth.
Speaker 1: Why does Paul say that it's the church? Am I
Speaker 1: allowed to engage with you on that? Obviously? If I'm
Speaker 1: asking you a.
Speaker 3: Question, Yeah, I don't believe that the scripture is the
Speaker 3: pillaring ground.
Speaker 4: It just is the truth. The normative authority is scripture.
Speaker 1: So what's the difference between being the pillar and ground
Speaker 1: of truth and being the truth?
Speaker 3: The pillar holds up the truth and it Oh, so
Speaker 3: the church holds up the scriptures. It of course points
Speaker 3: to the scriptures. Guards the scriptures. It's supposed to elevate
Speaker 3: the scriptures. It's supposed to magnify this way.
Speaker 1: So the church holds up the scriptures. So the church
Speaker 1: supports the thing that you says the ultimate truth.
Speaker 3: Absolutely believe. I believe that the church is a necessary function.
Speaker 3: I believe tradition is acceptable from the top down.
Speaker 1: Underneath is it underneath the thing that you said was
Speaker 1: the foundation?
Speaker 4: It is subject to the scripture?
Speaker 1: Guess no, No, subject to is the opposite of being
Speaker 1: the foundation and pillar of you don't know what that means.
Speaker 3: Obviously, you could use these analogies in two different ways. No,
Speaker 3: they're opposite a hierarchy and then of course the Bible foundation.
Speaker 4: There're two different analogies. You could use them.
Speaker 1: No, they're not. This analogy says that the pillar and
Speaker 1: ground of truth is the Church. It's the opposite of
Speaker 1: what you just said. And you said, well, you can
Speaker 1: say it both ways. Where does it Why do you
Speaker 1: say that?
Speaker 3: Obviously, the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the our foundation,
Speaker 3: He's the chief cornerstone. But another place the Bible, God
Speaker 3: is the king of kings and Lord of lords.
Speaker 1: So is a time? What does that have to do
Speaker 1: with these two different analogies. What does that have to
Speaker 1: do with proving that the canon that you have is
Speaker 1: the accurate canon.
Speaker 4: The reason why I believe the Bible is the word
Speaker 4: of God is because of.
Speaker 1: What I asked you that you have the right canon.
Speaker 1: I know you think it's the word of God. How
Speaker 1: do you know that you have the right canon? When
Speaker 1: Paul says it's the Church that is appearing ground of
Speaker 1: truth that produces the Bible and decides what goes into it.
Speaker 4: Again, you're you're you're you're not listening to what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: If you're not in the book, if every single book
Speaker 3: in the Bible has a divine voice, then that is
Speaker 3: how I decide you're.
Speaker 1: Begging the question. You're begging the question because I'm asking
Speaker 1: you how you know that the sixty six books is
Speaker 1: the limit of the divine voice and not our canon.
Speaker 4: Because no other book matches the divine voice.
Speaker 1: So if I hold out, so that's a fallacy of
Speaker 1: self evidence, and it's begging the questions. So because you
Speaker 1: think that the Protestant canon is the self evident manifest thing,
Speaker 1: when that's what I'm asking you, how do you know
Speaker 1: that that's the case? You said, because of attest to
Speaker 1: that self evident manifest thing. That's a fallacy of self evidence.
Speaker 4: So wait a minute.
Speaker 3: If Christ is infallible and his word is infallible, how.
Speaker 1: Could I appeal to that which is fallible.
Speaker 3: To authenticate something that's infallible, as is the head? If
Speaker 3: Christ is infallible, not listening to the authenticating you believe
Speaker 3: something to be self authenticating.
Speaker 1: The opening statement showed you that the written texts are
Speaker 1: not the only thing called the Word of God. So
Speaker 1: you just keep begging them. You didn't prove that you
Speaker 1: can claimed multiple did you not listen to the You
Speaker 1: just the Bible? You're just calling in a misinterpretation. Paul says,
Speaker 1: the things that you heard from me in the presence
Speaker 1: of many witnesses. Pass those things on as sound doctrine.
Speaker 1: Peter says, the word of God.
Speaker 3: Okay, so could you could they all tell them something
Speaker 3: that those doctrine but not those Yeah, Paul could say, hey,
Speaker 3: here's how you should scripture.
Speaker 1: So I'm not asking is it scripture? I'm asking you
Speaker 1: is their oral word of God? The Word of God
Speaker 1: can be spoken out loud? Obviously? Does that they're teaching oral?
Speaker 1: That's not just written texts.
Speaker 3: There's teaching and then there's a scripture. If I quote scripture,
Speaker 3: I'm quoting the word of God.
Speaker 1: If ill call why are you dissimulating? Why does Paul
Speaker 1: and Peter call their oral teaching the word of God?
Speaker 1: They don't.
Speaker 4: There's no Peter says, the word of reaching the Bible.
Speaker 1: If I get or preach what the Bible says, that
Speaker 1: doesn't make my words the word the book of acts.
Speaker 1: Paul says he taught for three years day and night,
Speaker 1: and he tells Timothy in the letter to pass on
Speaker 1: all the things that you heard from me in the
Speaker 1: presence of many witnesses. So you just refuted yourself. Okay,
Speaker 1: he's teaching the scripture. He didn't say that for three years.
Speaker 1: He just recited verses. Okay, how about first Christian God
Speaker 1: and the subject? Did he just cite verses for three
Speaker 1: years straight?
Speaker 4: Obviously?
Speaker 1: He reasoned out of the scriptures, Oh, there's also oral teaching.
Speaker 1: That's the word of God. Thank you. As Peter says,
Speaker 1: the word preach to you, how do you do mouth?
Speaker 1: I never said. I never said that. He reasoned, Yes,
Speaker 1: you did. You said, they're just teaching scriptures. They're interpreting
Speaker 1: the scripture. That's the point if Paul is teaching for
Speaker 1: their interpretation is not the scripture. It's the oral teaching.
Speaker 1: That's the Word of God. Well, that's the point of
Speaker 1: what these says.
Speaker 4: The Word of God is also oral teaching.
Speaker 1: I'm showing you in these passages you haven't shown a
Speaker 1: single word the Gospel preached to you first Peter one,
Speaker 1: twenty three and twenty four. Okay, lot's got there, Paul,
Speaker 1: I just quoted it. I don't have to go there.
Speaker 1: I just quoted it for you. Paul says. Therefore, brethren,
Speaker 1: stand fast and hold the traditions that you were taught,
Speaker 1: whether by word or are written epistles. Second, that's fifteen.
Speaker 4: Let's ask this question, how do you know that your church?
Speaker 1: No? Why are you doing a tea? Why are you
Speaker 1: doing a two quoque when I'm asking you? Is there
Speaker 1: oral teaching that's the word of God or not? There's
Speaker 1: no example of that in scripture. I just gave you three.
Speaker 1: Do you want more? Okay?
Speaker 3: So first Peter, chapter one, verse twenty five. But the
Speaker 3: Word of the Lord endureth forever. That's the scripture. And
Speaker 3: this is the word which by the gospel's preached unto you.
Speaker 3: He's preaching the scripture. He's preaching the word about.
Speaker 1: He's just citing because endure and the Bible.
Speaker 2: Alright, I gotta jump ahrd one second just to I
Speaker 2: have to go into ninety minute or ninety second responseible.
Speaker 1: No, let's do that, because this is too stupid.
Speaker 2: Okay, we'll give you a pastor Jonathan if you want
Speaker 2: to finish that thought. Oh God, the timer said for
Speaker 2: you for ninety seconds.
Speaker 3: First Peter, chapter one, verse twenty five. But the word
Speaker 3: of the Lord endure forever. That debunks Jay's point that
Speaker 3: he earlier stated the Word of God has created, it's
Speaker 3: always existed, and says in this is the word?
Speaker 1: What word? The word of the Lord? Whatever was already
Speaker 1: preached that endured forever. You can't say that Peter's words
Speaker 1: endured forever, or that Peter existed before this. He's talking
Speaker 1: about the scripture, which by the Gospel is preached unto you,
Speaker 1: this in no way teaches that whenever Peter or Paul
Speaker 1: get up and explain what the Bible means, or they
Speaker 1: give the sense of the reading that that is scripture,
Speaker 1: then there would be no differentiation. How could you even
Speaker 1: differentiate between oral and the scripture if they're all just
Speaker 1: quote scripture, if they're all the word of God, how
Speaker 1: do you know what's the word of God?
Speaker 4: At that point?
Speaker 1: And if it is the word of God, why don't
Speaker 1: we have it written down? Why don't we have it
Speaker 1: for us?
Speaker 3: Because Jesus Christ said, men does not live by bread alone,
Speaker 3: but by every word of God.
Speaker 4: If it's truly the word of God, then why don't
Speaker 4: we have it?
Speaker 1: Are you a fundamentally stupid person? Are you not listening
Speaker 1: to what I'm telling you. I didn't say that the
Speaker 1: Word of God is only a creature. I said that
Speaker 1: the written texts are created. And that's why Jesus says this,
Speaker 1: use search the scriptures because you think that it is
Speaker 1: in them that you have eternal life. When it's they
Speaker 1: that testify to me. The Word of God is a person.
Speaker 1: He's the second person of the Trinity. I said that
Speaker 1: the written texts, which are sometimes called Word of God,
Speaker 1: are a manifestation and revelation of the Word of God.
Speaker 1: They are created. The Bible is a creature. It's a
Speaker 1: created thing. It's not eternal. Sorry, I don't know. If
Speaker 1: you're a Muslim you think I'm finished.
Speaker 2: I'm not finished.
Speaker 1: I'm not finished. Furthermore, you keep equivocating because you think
Speaker 1: that every time it says Word of God, it's only written.
Speaker 1: And I'm showing you that there's two mediums of Word
Speaker 1: of God God. One that is oral when the apostles preach,
Speaker 1: which they identify as the Word of God, and another
Speaker 1: which is the written which is also the what they
Speaker 1: are interpreting. So when Paul teaches for three years, day
Speaker 1: and night in Ephesus, you admitted he's interpreting it that
Speaker 1: is identified as a tradition and the word that Timothy
Speaker 1: must pass on. And you keep deflecting away from that.
Speaker 4: I haven't deflected away again.
Speaker 3: You make a distinction the scriptures don't make between Christ
Speaker 3: and the word of God. I gave you Jesus Christ,
Speaker 3: Jesus says, what.
Speaker 2: Does it mean? Jump in is in terms of Jay.
Speaker 2: If you handed over to him with a question, then
Speaker 2: I got to give him a full chance to respond.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, you search, am I asking the question? Now
Speaker 1: go for it. You search the scriptures because you think
Speaker 1: that it is in them that you have eternal life,
Speaker 1: when it is they that bear witness of me. Thus
Speaker 1: there is obviously a distinction betwe between the written texts
Speaker 1: and the eternal word of God, who is the second
Speaker 1: person of the Trinity. The second person of the Trinity
Speaker 1: is not a book, it's not a text. It's a person,
Speaker 1: and they are obvious.
Speaker 2: Passage ninety seconds for Jonathan and Jonathan just to let
Speaker 2: you know, if you if you yield it over your
Speaker 2: ninety second, fine, then if you want you can, But
Speaker 2: other ways you got the full ninety seconds.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Word. The
Speaker 3: Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We also have
Speaker 3: the Bible making it obviously clear that Jesus Christ is
Speaker 3: the Word of God, since it's literally written on his thigh.
Speaker 3: Jay is making a distinction that the scripture does not make.
Speaker 1: I asked you a passage.
Speaker 2: We're still in his We're still in his ninety.
Speaker 4: Seconds obvious the scriptures.
Speaker 3: Of course, we believe that the Word of God is
Speaker 3: also the Father speaking.
Speaker 4: It's God's word.
Speaker 3: But there's a unique there's a unique overlap between the
Speaker 3: Word of God and Jesus Christ that the Bible clearly articulates.
Speaker 3: You can take one verse and try to pretend like
Speaker 3: that the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus Christ is the Word.
Speaker 3: But that's what the Bible says, and repeatedly in multiple places.
Speaker 1: What is why is it called? Why is he called
Speaker 1: the word if he's not the word? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is so silly. This is an equivocation fallacy. So you
Speaker 1: understand what equivocation is. Obviously you don't you understand what equivocation.
Speaker 3: Is, sure making two things equivalent that aren't truly equivalent.
Speaker 4: I understand the point that you're.
Speaker 1: Trying and John agree In John one, when it says
Speaker 1: that the word became flesh and dwelt among us, is
Speaker 1: that the Bible? Or is that the incarnation.
Speaker 3: Jesus Christ is a person. I'm not going to disagree
Speaker 3: in John one.
Speaker 1: Is in John one, stop man, you don't answer any questions.
Speaker 1: In John one when it says the word became flesh
Speaker 1: and dwelt among us, is that talking about the Bible,
Speaker 1: because on your view it has to be one of
Speaker 1: the other. Or is it talking about him taking human nature?
Speaker 4: It's the person Jesus Christ, but he is the word
Speaker 4: as well.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking that. What is it when it's to
Speaker 1: say thank you? So it's not talking about the Bible there, Right,
Speaker 1: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God,
Speaker 1: so I know you believe that. I'm not asked. You
Speaker 1: can't things, and John, I'm not separating. I'm demonstrating that
Speaker 1: there's a distinction between the incarnation of the word becoming
Speaker 1: flesh and his message in the written texts. And you
Speaker 1: just admitted that that's talking about the incarnation. So you're
Speaker 1: admitting that word doesn't always refer to the Bible.
Speaker 3: Right, word could have different contexts, I understand, but it
Speaker 3: can also have the context that I clearly illustrated.
Speaker 1: I never denied it mean Jay.
Speaker 4: When it says on his thigh the Word of God,
Speaker 4: what does that mean?
Speaker 1: He is this? He is the logos, the Word of
Speaker 1: God from all eternity. So you're that the Bible doesn't
Speaker 1: make You just admitted the distinction. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: You just admitted that word doesn't always refer to the
Speaker 1: Bible or the written text. That's all I have to
Speaker 1: demonstrate to show you that in a particular you keep
Speaker 1: making Just saying that it's the different context doesn't answer
Speaker 1: this question. The word became flesh welts among us. You said,
Speaker 1: that's referring to the incarnation. So word there is not
Speaker 1: directly referencing or referring to the written text of scripture. Correct.
Speaker 3: Obviously, sometimes when the Bible is talking about the Word
Speaker 3: of the Lord, it could be referring to just the
Speaker 3: scripture that we have written.
Speaker 4: Down and nobody is referring to the person.
Speaker 3: But you're trying to make a distinct and say these
Speaker 3: are two completely different.
Speaker 1: They always uh is the is the Bible a written
Speaker 1: created text?
Speaker 3: The Bible was delivered in part to man. But the Bible,
Speaker 3: Bible ever existent, it's eternal. I believe the Word of
Speaker 3: God is eternal.
Speaker 1: It's always a Bible, not the second person of the God.
Speaker 1: That you think the Bible is eternal. Yes, so you're
Speaker 1: a polytheist because you believe in the Father of the
Speaker 1: Son and the Holy Spirit and a book that you're
Speaker 1: a Muslim.
Speaker 3: No, because the Bible teaches the Father of the Word
Speaker 3: and the Holy Ghost.
Speaker 4: These three are one. There's there's three that you just admitted.
Speaker 1: You just admitted that John one makes a distinction between
Speaker 1: the eternal person of the logos.
Speaker 3: Sometimes the text is telling us the hand, dude, is
Speaker 3: this book in my hand? It's a living The Word
Speaker 3: of God is living.
Speaker 1: Is this a creation? No, It's always existed. So you're
Speaker 1: an idolatry. You believe that this is an uncreated book.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't idolize the book in my hand?
Speaker 1: Is it eternal? Where was this before the creation?
Speaker 4: That physical book is not physical?
Speaker 1: Book? Made a distinction, thank you. So you made a distinction,
Speaker 1: which is the very distinction I'm trying to make the
Speaker 1: Word of God from all eternity. Is the second person
Speaker 1: of attorney the logos. This is a created thing that
Speaker 1: came into being. It's not eternal. Are you the stupid?
Speaker 1: The physical book that you hold in your hands, the
Speaker 1: words inside of it are the Bible is a physical book.
Speaker 3: Okay, the physical body of Jesus came into existence in
Speaker 3: the incarnation. But Jesus is not created being just because
Speaker 3: he has manifested himself that.
Speaker 1: I argue, you're making straw men in creation.
Speaker 4: The Word of God was manifested in a different times.
Speaker 1: Shut up. I never argued that the second person of
Speaker 1: the Trinity was a creature. I said that he is,
Speaker 1: that it was created. He's yeah. You keep equivocating between
Speaker 1: uses of word. It doesn't always refer to the second
Speaker 1: person the Trinity. Sometimes it's referring to a written text.
Speaker 1: I believe that. That's why my argument shows you that
Speaker 1: the apostles say the oral teaching is also the word
Speaker 1: of God, the word of God preached to you. So
Speaker 1: do you actually think that when Paul was teaching for
Speaker 1: three years straight in Ephesus Day and Night, that he
Speaker 1: only cited scripture verses. I believe he only appealed to
Speaker 1: scripture verses as the scripture, but he Obviously the reading
Speaker 1: not scripture. It doesn't I know it's not scripture. It's
Speaker 1: the oral.
Speaker 3: Tradition Anthean's chapter seven as his personal opinion. Obviously, not
Speaker 3: everything that that the apostle Paul said with scripture.
Speaker 1: Does to me. I want you to restate the argument,
Speaker 1: because I don't even think you're capable of doing that.
Speaker 1: I am arguing that Paul taught for three days or
Speaker 1: three years, day and night in Ephesus, and in the
Speaker 1: letters to Timothy, he commands Timothy to pass on everything
Speaker 1: that he heard from Paul. Is that only written texts?
Speaker 1: I have nothing.
Speaker 3: I have no problem with traditions or oral teachings being
Speaker 3: passed down. That's not in compliance with the scripture. You're
Speaker 3: just what you think.
Speaker 1: Is scripture or whether you think that works or not.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you, does Paul command Timothy to pass on
Speaker 1: everything that he heard Paul teach? Sure? Okay, thank you?
Speaker 1: So Paul was teaching the word of God? Correct? Paul
Speaker 1: preached the word of God? Okay? Orly's he spake out
Speaker 1: loud the scriptures that I hold in my hand. So
Speaker 1: you keep equivocating because you know that he's interpreting those texts.
Speaker 1: You don't think so.
Speaker 3: I don't think his interpretation is the is divine or infallible.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, obviously the scriptures are.
Speaker 3: Paul can have opinion because I haven't said. In First Corindiance,
Speaker 3: chapter seven, he wasn't even sure if his opinion was right.
Speaker 3: He said, I think I have the spirit of God.
Speaker 3: You just keep it in a separate matter because tradition
Speaker 3: can be wrong. Paul could be wrong. Paul is wrong
Speaker 3: in parts of the New Testament is wrong, and parts
Speaker 3: of Paul is wrong.
Speaker 4: This is wrong in parts of the Jestment.
Speaker 1: How is your church in? So you're saying the New
Speaker 1: Testament churches were wrong. You're just said that the New
Speaker 1: Testament has teachings that are wrong Paul. Yes, of course
Speaker 1: these people lying or almost doctrine what Jezebel teaches. You said,
Speaker 1: is it right? Paul wrong?
Speaker 4: He said that things sacrifice on the devils.
Speaker 1: That said, Paul has things wrong.
Speaker 3: Paul was wrong at one point he was. He was
Speaker 3: trying to get people do so now you don't even
Speaker 3: agree with Paul. What are you going to do if
Speaker 3: Paul's teachings are scripturing? It's just a history book. It's
Speaker 3: not telling us what's right. It's just telling us what happened.
Speaker 3: There's things that they did in the Book of Acts
Speaker 3: that were wrong. What Peter did was wrong and he
Speaker 3: was rebuked by the apostle Paul.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about teachings because Paul is commanding the
Speaker 1: church at Thessalonika. Does this even have to do tradition
Speaker 1: over the top of the Paul is commanding the oral
Speaker 1: tradition that he taught to the Thessalonians and to Timothy
Speaker 1: at Ephesus to pass on those teachings. Are you saying
Speaker 1: that those are wrong? I believe that what we have
Speaker 1: in scripture is right. Are you saying any oral teachings
Speaker 1: that never asked? Why you're not answering sized I don't
Speaker 1: know what all he taught? How can I know what
Speaker 1: he taught at every single It doesn't matter what three
Speaker 1: years I'm asking you, should he have taught that? Does
Speaker 1: he say that? Does he say keep my oral traditions? Yes,
Speaker 1: the traditions that that he doesn't have your review. You're
Speaker 1: just begging the question, how do you even know that?
Speaker 1: You just said you don't know what the world traditions were,
Speaker 1: So how do you know that they're not in a chord.
Speaker 1: Obviously everything should be tested with scripture. But you just
Speaker 1: you give tradition. You just got caught. You just said
Speaker 1: you don't know what the oral traditions were, So then
Speaker 1: how can you say that they're not You don't know
Speaker 1: if they're in I said, I can't know everything. The
Speaker 1: apostle A taught, no, we're not. Now you're deflecting again.
Speaker 1: You know everything the apostle talk. Why that's quotque said
Speaker 1: specifically the oral traditions? How do you know that they're
Speaker 1: not right? If you don't know what they were, it's
Speaker 1: irrelevant to the conversation. It is irrelevant. It's all I
Speaker 1: have is the scripture. It's the New Testament text about
Speaker 1: oral tradition. How could it be irrelevant? Because who knows
Speaker 1: what it is? What is it? What is it?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 1: How do you know the world traditions? If nobody and
Speaker 1: if you don't know, how do you know what's wrong?
Speaker 1: You're arguing about a hypothetical you made the ridiculous. You
Speaker 1: contradicted yourself. You give me one example when you contradiction
Speaker 1: to that. I'm not going to let it go because
Speaker 1: you contradict yourself you said didn't contradict anything, Yes you did.
Speaker 1: You said that we don't know what the old tradition is,
Speaker 1: and so how do you know that it's wrong?
Speaker 3: Okay, obviously it's like, how do you know that watermelons
Speaker 3: aren't really blue on the inside until you cut them open?
Speaker 4: This is this is a silly.
Speaker 1: It's not How would I know you admitted Paul was
Speaker 1: right or wrong if I don't even know what it is.
Speaker 1: You don't know what it is admitted he teaches. No
Speaker 1: one knows what this is. We don't have it's not
Speaker 1: every single thing that that's no. We know. We have
Speaker 1: an Orthodox Church, a basis and a tradition. You have
Speaker 1: no basis at all. So I want to know how
Speaker 1: you know it's a scripture, that's what was. You haven't
Speaker 1: demonstrated that because it was preserved. Again, I want you
Speaker 1: to address the contradiction. You said that we don't know
Speaker 1: what Paul taught, So then how do you know that
Speaker 1: it's wrong? Why would I go into a hypothetical something
Speaker 1: that doesn't it it's not a hypothetical, it's what you said.
Speaker 4: Yes, I still agree. I agree. I don't know what
Speaker 4: Paul talk do you?
Speaker 1: How do you know it's wrong if you don't know
Speaker 1: the world teaching that Paul gave wrong. This this, this
Speaker 1: is like a silly you just you just constantly you
Speaker 1: won't even answer the question. It's you're answering nothing. It's
Speaker 1: your claim. Have you even answered a single question? It
Speaker 1: never answer? Did you claim that.
Speaker 4: I never claimed that I knew it?
Speaker 1: Paul talk nos Why are you deflecting? You said two
Speaker 1: contradictory things. You said. On the one hand, we don't
Speaker 1: know what the oral tradition was that you admitted Paul
Speaker 1: passed on. Then you implied that it's wrong and it
Speaker 1: can be subject to being rejected. I said that the
Speaker 1: Apostle Paul did things that are wrong in the book
Speaker 1: of the oral tradition. You're talking about anything that I'm saying,
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about I'm about to be sure you guys.
Speaker 1: Do you think Paul taught error? He said things that
Speaker 1: were inaccurate, and he the book of in the Book
Speaker 1: of Acts, So how do you know that, I don't
Speaker 1: think anybody is. In fact, do you know that he's
Speaker 1: not teaching or elsewhere the.
Speaker 3: Apostle Paul admits that he taught air for the vast
Speaker 3: majority of his life until he came to Christ.
Speaker 1: Then, obviously I'm talking about during the period of him
Speaker 1: being an apostle, not before his life. Obviously, deflecting, deflecting.
Speaker 3: In the Book of Acts, the apostle Paul is competing.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking.
Speaker 3: It's wrong, and he corrects himself. In the Book of Galatians,
Speaker 3: we have the Apostlele correcting the the apostle Peter in
Speaker 3: the Book of Galatians.
Speaker 1: How does how does correcting Peter? I'm asking about did
Speaker 1: Paul correct Peter? I want to I'm not You want
Speaker 1: to answer a question. That's This is the debate answers
Speaker 1: zero questions. Of course, you can't even answer simple questions.
Speaker 1: Of course correct, of course he corrected Peter. What is apostles?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Du You made the argument that he taught error? If
Speaker 1: they're both apostles, then how did how did the wrong?
Speaker 4: How did the apostle Paul know that Peter is wrong?
Speaker 1: You do not know the difference between moral error and
Speaker 1: theological error. They're two different things. The apostle the apostles
Speaker 1: can sin. It doesn't mean that they are followable and
Speaker 1: taught heresies in error. So so nobody ever taught any
Speaker 1: error in the New testing. The apostles are infallible. They
Speaker 1: do not teach error, So are infallible? Show me a
Speaker 1: verse on that? Can you show me a verse on that?
Speaker 1: You don't believe the puzzles are infallible? No? Then, who
Speaker 1: compiled the scriptures?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 3: Churches received the word of God? Timothy received, He's not infallible.
Speaker 1: Who compiled them?
Speaker 4: Christians?
Speaker 1: What man? Who win tons of Christians throughout? Who win
Speaker 1: all of them? I mean, let's just be honest, lost
Speaker 1: largest multiple churches.
Speaker 3: New you just lost the epistles. You're passing them around,
Speaker 3: copying them.
Speaker 1: You just lost the debate. I haven't lost anything. You can't.
Speaker 1: You can never tell me how your church is. Who
Speaker 1: shows infallible? Every time I ask you a question? You
Speaker 1: can't show anything. It's just trust me. Brous our church,
Speaker 1: Jesus says. Jesus says in the Gospel of John that
Speaker 1: he would be with the church until the end of
Speaker 1: the world, and he would lead and guide them into
Speaker 1: all truths. So, yes, the apostle, you just appealed the
Speaker 1: scripture and the church told so your solo script that's problem.
Speaker 2: Gentlemen, hold on, be sure so just so.
Speaker 1: Make it clear, your church is infallible because of scripture
Speaker 1: nor solo scripture. You literally cannot think outside of the
Speaker 1: fact that I appeal to the scriptures doesn't mean to
Speaker 1: have your paradigm.
Speaker 3: Your paradigm is that to to prove that your church
Speaker 3: is invaluable appealed the scripture, which is the final authority, because.
Speaker 1: No scrip no. In my paradigm, the scriptures are and authority.
Speaker 1: They're not the only authority. But you can't think outside
Speaker 1: of your paradigm because you don't even understand where the
Speaker 1: scriptures came from. And that's why you can't tell me
Speaker 1: who put them together? And win tell me Rustle Paul
Speaker 1: wrote letters to churches who compiled the canon of scripture
Speaker 1: when there's many different people that have I have a
Speaker 1: different lists at different times. Who and okay, so which
Speaker 1: one is the right one? Obviously I believe the King
Speaker 1: James Bible these sixty six. I don't care what you believe.
Speaker 4: How do you prove that? How do you prove that
Speaker 4: you have the right care?
Speaker 1: Are you doing a two quotquoi fallacy? I'm asking you?
Speaker 3: Obviously the divine voice I already pointed this. The divine voice.
Speaker 3: And clearly we have internal consistency. The seven dude to
Speaker 3: chronicle books.
Speaker 1: The where is the consistent Where is the by all
Speaker 1: the Christians? They're not received by everybody that is saved. Additionally,
Speaker 1: your church, Where is the divine voice telling you that
Speaker 1: that's the right canon? So do you believe there's no difference?
Speaker 1: Where is the doctor Seuss? Where is the divine voice
Speaker 1: telling you that the Protestant canon is correct? The Divine voice?
Speaker 1: This is what Jesus said. Jesus said, my sheep here
Speaker 1: mind Jesus believe.
Speaker 2: All right, guys. Just to be sure is that if
Speaker 2: he's in mid sentence answering you, j I do have
Speaker 2: to give him a chance to finish the sentence.
Speaker 4: How does Timothy know what the scripture is without a
Speaker 4: church council?
Speaker 3: And how did the first three hundred years of Christians
Speaker 3: know how to even operate? They live died before he
Speaker 3: ever had any of your ecumenical counsels. How do they
Speaker 3: know what the scripture is? How did any of the
Speaker 3: Old Testament saints no what the scripture is?
Speaker 1: Did you hear me argue that an ecumenical council is
Speaker 1: necessary to have scriptures? Did you hear me argue.
Speaker 4: That, I'm just want to know you, how do you
Speaker 4: know what the scripture is?
Speaker 1: Did you hear me argue that? Then they explain to me,
Speaker 1: how do you know what the scripture is? Jay, Well,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of reasons and bases to know
Speaker 1: the scripture. One is the tradition of the church first
Speaker 1: and foremost, because, for example, with Matthew, I don't know
Speaker 1: that Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew without
Speaker 1: the testimony and tradition of the Apostolic churches that passed
Speaker 1: on the Gospel of Matthew, because Matthew doesn't tell me.
Speaker 1: And if Apostolic authorship is one of the important criteria
Speaker 1: for Matthew being in the Bible, then I have to
Speaker 1: rely on church tradition to even know what the scriptures are.
Speaker 1: And that refutes you.
Speaker 3: So you said that you got the Bible from your
Speaker 3: church tradition. How did Timothy know.
Speaker 1: That everybody everybody got the Bible from their church tradition.
Speaker 4: How does Timothy know what was scripture?
Speaker 1: Well, the Old Testament Jews had their own testimony, They
Speaker 1: had their own groups of men that would meet together.
Speaker 1: They had a levitelylytical priesthood that was an authority. So
Speaker 1: even the Old Testament has recognized authorities. And if you
Speaker 1: look at doctor bo Branson's debate that I had with
Speaker 1: him and Dale the Protestant, we go into depth about
Speaker 1: even the Old Testament operated in a sonodal way. So
Speaker 1: they had authorities that are called the Levites, thelylitical priesthood,
Speaker 1: which exited you to the law and bound people's consciences.
Speaker 1: So there is an authority structure in Israel and the
Speaker 1: attestation that profits have. Absolutely I believe in internal consistency,
Speaker 1: coherency with the rest of the scriptures. If Obadiah starts preaching,
Speaker 1: he has to preach in continuity with the other texts.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't prove that it's sola scripture, because, as
Speaker 1: I argue O on the testimony, the testimony is the
Speaker 1: world tradition.
Speaker 3: If the lilitical priesthood at the time of Cristi is
Speaker 3: rebuked for having created traditions that are in violation of
Speaker 3: the scripture, why is that not still true today?
Speaker 1: Are you asking about rabbinic teachings because Christ is the
Speaker 1: superior authority over those priests.
Speaker 4: He appealed to Scripture he said that you.
Speaker 1: Also appealed reject the wall, also appealed to tradition for
Speaker 1: your to.
Speaker 4: Keep your own tradition.
Speaker 1: So can these also appealed when the council has I
Speaker 1: don't have a problem appealing to the scriptures in my paradigm.
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with that. But Jesus also appealed to tradition,
Speaker 1: as I showed you. He appealed to tradition when absolutely
Speaker 1: show me a verse in the in Matthew three. In
Speaker 1: Matthew twenty three, he said, the scribes and the Pharisees
Speaker 1: sit in the seat of Moses. Therefore do as they say,
Speaker 1: and not as they do. Can you show me the
Speaker 1: Old Testament where there's a seat of Moses that the
Speaker 1: Pharisees have the leave it? Levitical priesthood was ordained by Moses.
Speaker 1: Where is the seat of Moses that the Pharisees authority
Speaker 1: sees the position?
Speaker 4: Obviously?
Speaker 1: Where in the Old Testament is to say that the
Speaker 1: Pharisees or any future lineage would have authority from Moses
Speaker 1: to sit in his Pitical priesthood was, ever, was supposed
Speaker 1: to sit in Moses until they obviously rebelled.
Speaker 3: Are the Pharisees, levitical priests. No, that's the saddest, well,
Speaker 3: not all of them. No, they're coming from Zaida.
Speaker 1: How the Pharisees, how do they? How do they sit
Speaker 1: in the seat of Moses? Moses is not alyitical priest
Speaker 1: Levi his brother is the priesthood? How do they sit
Speaker 1: in Moses?
Speaker 3: Obviously, after he died, is no longer in charge.
Speaker 1: Where in the arts the high priest? Where the okay,
Speaker 1: so then where the priesthood? Then? Where in the Old
Speaker 1: Testament is there the idea that Moses has a seat
Speaker 1: that people occupy.
Speaker 3: I already explained it to you that the Moses, they're
Speaker 3: ordained by Moses. Moses gave them that authority, and so
Speaker 3: they're in the authority that.
Speaker 1: Where is the seat of Moses?
Speaker 3: Moses obviously put the garments on aaron in Where is
Speaker 3: the priesthood in the.
Speaker 1: Ironic priesthood is not Moses? Where is a seat of Moses?
Speaker 1: What tribe is Moses from? The levitical priesthood is as
Speaker 1: the question what tribe is Moses from? It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Is Moses from Moses? I want to answer the question,
Speaker 1: Is it because he's from Leviestion? Is he a livitical
Speaker 1: priest or is it his brother? He was the one
Speaker 1: that was then charge. What's the named the ironic priesthood?
Speaker 1: What's it named after? Aaron became the high priest? Not Moses?
Speaker 4: Again, Moses was the authority in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: Thank you, so Jesus appealing to the Old Testament where
Speaker 1: you didn't use the word Jesus is not talking about
Speaker 1: Jesus taught.
Speaker 4: Tradition and you don't have any.
Speaker 1: Stop lying, dude, you're such a liar. I'mtthew twenty three.
Speaker 1: Jesus is talking about the scribes and Pharisees sitting in
Speaker 1: the seat of Moses. He doesn't mention the vitical priests.
Speaker 1: What is what is the seat of Moses? Then? Exactly,
Speaker 1: it's a tradition and it's recognized by all the scholars
Speaker 1: that comments on this that it's a tradition that Jesus
Speaker 1: referring to that there's a succession of teachers of the
Speaker 1: law formed under the time of Ezra. So when Ezra
Speaker 1: created the synagogue system, they had the seat of Moses.
Speaker 1: They're not the Levites, do not we know this? Because
Speaker 1: they had that authority in the diaspora period, So you're.
Speaker 4: Just appealing to rabbinic teachings on this too.
Speaker 1: No Jesus is appealing to the rabbinic teaching. Any competent
Speaker 1: New Testament scholar, even amongst Protestants, will admit that Jesus
Speaker 1: in Matthew twenty three is appealing to true Jesus.
Speaker 3: Didn't ordain the levitical priesthood, and we're not talking about them.
Speaker 1: What are you even talking about? Do you understand the
Speaker 1: argument I just made that it's about Ezra forming the
Speaker 1: synagogue system, which is where you get the scribes and
Speaker 1: the Pharisees as authoritative teachers. That is not the levitical priesthood.
Speaker 1: How do I know this because in the Diaspora they
Speaker 1: had authority to teach the scribes in the Pharisees.
Speaker 3: So why why is Jesus being rebuked for not keeping
Speaker 3: the tradition of the elders?
Speaker 1: Did you not I hear the opening statement I said,
Speaker 1: there are traditions that are false that replace the word
Speaker 1: of God good tradition Jeremiah twenty Jeremiah even refers to
Speaker 1: the scribes and the Pharisees attempting to change the law
Speaker 1: and come up with man made traditions. So when Jesus
Speaker 1: in Matthew twenty three makes this argument, he's referring back
Speaker 1: to Jeremiah.
Speaker 4: Traditions are right and.
Speaker 1: Wrong because of what the New Testament and the Old
Speaker 1: Testament teach, and the oral tradition of the Church. They
Speaker 1: are all authorities.
Speaker 3: Wait wait, wait, wait, the Old New Testament, but the
Speaker 3: oral traditions of the Church. How do I know an
Speaker 3: Old Testament tradition is right or wrong without the Church.
Speaker 1: You don't, because the Church has no I didn't say that.
Speaker 1: That's a false. That's a false and non sequitar I
Speaker 1: said the Church has an integral role in interpreting and
Speaker 1: confirming and creating the canon of scripture. That's why you
Speaker 1: can't tell me when the canon even came about or
Speaker 1: who did it. You have no idea. You just said's
Speaker 1: a bunch of people, all the Christians. At some point the.
Speaker 3: Scripture was a scripture, regardless of who could identify it
Speaker 3: or not.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that. That's begging the question to be
Speaker 1: the word of God. Okay, name somebody in the first
Speaker 1: three centuries that had your canon of scripture?
Speaker 4: Well again, you it does matter.
Speaker 1: Names won't matter. It doesn't matter. You just claim that
Speaker 1: it was the scriptures, no matter what. So name somebody
Speaker 1: that had your canon?
Speaker 4: Why does it matter who I could point to you?
Speaker 1: Because you're a sect that's made up after the Reformation
Speaker 1: and nobody had your views in the first innerd years
Speaker 1: or the first thousand years. I'm using the sixty six
Speaker 1: books and you agree with I don't care the sixty six.
Speaker 1: I believe the sixties what fallacies are? The difference is
Speaker 1: you you believe the apocrypha and I don't. How does
Speaker 1: how do in three hundred and eighteen A d Say
Speaker 1: that the scriptures are sufficient for preaching the truth without
Speaker 1: your canon. He doesn't have your canon. Do you understand
Speaker 1: that the Book of Revelation is only in the scriptures
Speaker 1: because Athenasia is convinced Rome? So do you think ath
Speaker 1: Nations was infallible?
Speaker 4: No? Absolutely not?
Speaker 1: Okay? So then how was it that he was the
Speaker 1: one that How.
Speaker 3: Could he make that claim? Though I was asking that,
Speaker 3: he's bagging the question. How does he know what the
Speaker 3: scriptures are?
Speaker 1: How could he even make us like the Apostolic tradition?
Speaker 4: Did he get the apostles handed down to him?
Speaker 1: He got the Apostolic tradition handed down to him which
Speaker 1: you rely on hand? Even know that Matthew wrote, Matthew.
Speaker 1: How do you know, Matthew wrote Matthew who handed the scriptures?
Speaker 1: How do you know, Matthews? How do you know? Matthew
Speaker 1: wrote Matthew?
Speaker 3: How do the guys for the first one hundred, two hundred,
Speaker 3: three hundred years knows tradition?
Speaker 4: Which ones did they know? Which to happen?
Speaker 1: You know that we can read those people in the first, second,
Speaker 1: third century? Have you ever read them? So? Where did
Speaker 1: they give us? You know we can read them?
Speaker 4: They give us a list?
Speaker 1: Do you not listen to what I'm saying? Do you
Speaker 1: know we can go read these people? I argue that
Speaker 1: there's we can read what people the church Father is
Speaker 1: the first second, third century who passed on these texts?
Speaker 1: You said, the apostles of the one handing him down?
Speaker 1: Where is the where is the assated your church? In
Speaker 1: the apostolic seas to the successors to the apostles? When
Speaker 1: you go read Ignatius, Clement or any of the first
Speaker 1: second century church father, they talk about being the successors
Speaker 1: to the apostles. They talk about the bishop. Ignatius says,
Speaker 1: the bishop represents God, the Father to the Church. They
Speaker 1: have the limit know which things they hand down from
Speaker 1: the Apostolic tradition. I've answered this ten times to you,
Speaker 1: because they were taught and ordained by apostles.
Speaker 4: So the apostles had a list and they handed them
Speaker 4: a list.
Speaker 1: There is no list of the canon. That's what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to tell you. So then how do they know
Speaker 1: the scripture is because of the tradition of the church.
Speaker 1: You just it's a circular army. It's oh, the apostles
Speaker 1: just handed in the Bible. Because because they just handed
Speaker 1: in the Bible, you never make the circular argument. No,
Speaker 1: if you look at the history of the formation of
Speaker 1: the canon in the Apostolic Seas and the Roman Empire,
Speaker 1: there they're multiple different competing canons because when the apostles
Speaker 1: go out, they establish successors and churches that don't have
Speaker 1: all the texts. So if Paul writes a letter to
Speaker 1: the Thessalonians the church that thessal Aniki might have two
Speaker 1: Gospels and some Apol's Epistles and some of Peter, and
Speaker 1: they might not have the Book of Revelation. This is
Speaker 1: very com and knowledge. Basic history of the Canon of
Speaker 1: texts right, and then by the fourth, fifth, sixth century,
Speaker 1: the church meets to try to collate and figure out
Speaker 1: what the actual canonical texts are. Now, as I argue
Speaker 1: in my opening statement, no, no, no, how, how does
Speaker 1: that even make sense? If it possibility gave you all
Speaker 1: the scripture history out what it is. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: whether you think it stand them a list. What are
Speaker 1: you talking about? It doesn't even matter whether you think
Speaker 1: it makes sense, because I gave you the actual history
Speaker 1: of how it went down.
Speaker 3: That's what a standard by which the first three hundred
Speaker 3: years of of Christianity they have no idea of any scripture.
Speaker 1: You can't name one church. Rather, they even had your canon.
Speaker 1: So why should I you have no knowledge? I mean
Speaker 1: Saint Jerome is I said, the first three centuries.
Speaker 3: He's not the first whole? So why is it three?
Speaker 3: Why is it it two? Why is it four? I
Speaker 3: mean you're just making up numbers? Now, No, I'm not
Speaker 3: just make up Where is the Bible? The first made
Speaker 3: the argument?
Speaker 1: You said, pre Nicea, how did anybody know? So I'm
Speaker 1: asking you the same question. So pre Nicea, who had
Speaker 1: your canon of scripture?
Speaker 2: It?
Speaker 1: I would again, I would think any Christian knew was
Speaker 1: Solos when they got Matthew and they got Mark. When
Speaker 1: they got the written ephesis, they were like, this is
Speaker 1: obviously the word of God.
Speaker 4: And so they copied them and they handed to.
Speaker 1: Name somebody that had your canon. Should be easy. I
Speaker 1: don't care what person you because nobody had the Protestant
Speaker 1: Canadon that's obviously had them passing down the Bible because
Speaker 1: we have it today. I have these epistles because they
Speaker 1: massed them. This stupid I'm not asking you if there
Speaker 1: were all the manuscripts throughout the Roman Empire. I'm saying,
Speaker 1: name a church father in the first three centuries I
Speaker 1: see that.
Speaker 4: Cares about church fathers?
Speaker 1: Are they in fact because they preserve the infallible because
Speaker 1: they put it together? You idiot, which church fathers? You
Speaker 1: don't even? You can't name one? You don't know anything
Speaker 1: about this. You disagree with Jerome. I mean, Jerome didn't
Speaker 1: believe that the Apocrypha was legit. And what basicist am
Speaker 1: I supposed to go with Jerome? On your view? You're
Speaker 1: just cherry picking church history to narrative. Know, you just
Speaker 1: want to say, oh, whatt and so you think that
Speaker 1: you just picked one church father, Will you go with
Speaker 1: the mind of the total take any church fathers. I'm
Speaker 1: saying them.
Speaker 3: You said Jerome, you said, name somebody that had a
Speaker 3: similar canon, So I named somebody.
Speaker 1: I don't feel. I don't care if got Jerome got
Speaker 1: it right or wrong. So you're relying on people passing
Speaker 1: down text that really.
Speaker 4: Christians recognize God's word and they pass them.
Speaker 1: Down Christians everything Christian, what Christian churches in the church
Speaker 1: at Epic, some of the and you know you have
Speaker 1: the third century Christian. These guys, shut up. You can't
Speaker 1: name a Christian in the second and third century that
Speaker 1: had your view.
Speaker 3: All of the Christians in the first centry that were
Speaker 3: saved had my view because that's you know, they recognized
Speaker 3: the word. That's a church is in Asia were expected
Speaker 3: to receive the Word of God.
Speaker 1: That is talk the way scotsman fallacy because if I
Speaker 1: point to some of it as my canon, you act
Speaker 1: like he's not legit. You did it in the second
Speaker 1: legit is Jerome is Jerome's Latin vulgate.
Speaker 4: Legit is his view on the canon.
Speaker 1: Legit. Do you even know that Jerome submitted to the
Speaker 1: Church of Rome and included this is Jerome legit. Did
Speaker 1: you hear what I said? Refuge? You won't answer the
Speaker 1: question you I asked. You just ask another question, Jerome,
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm answering your You can't. You can't answer
Speaker 1: these questions because you know that you're wrong. Jerome submitted
Speaker 1: to Rome and included the dual Cannon that you're an idiot.
Speaker 1: You don't even know that. I don't Jerome is Catholic.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 4: I'm not a Catholic. You're not a Catholic.
Speaker 1: You asked me about Jerome's canon, and I proved you wrong,
Speaker 1: that he didn't even have your canon.
Speaker 4: I believe all the Christians could tell what the scripture was.
Speaker 1: You can't tell me that.
Speaker 4: Was in the second century.
Speaker 1: They know what the scripture was in What a true
Speaker 1: Scotsman fallacy is, obviously, it's just.
Speaker 3: When you cherry pick people that have a different opinion
Speaker 3: than you and claim that that's not legit. You say, oh, well,
Speaker 3: they it's like you're seven hundred and fifty four AD
Speaker 3: iconoclasm Scott.
Speaker 4: That was that was a rob council.
Speaker 1: That was a rude Scott in seven hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: seven a d that were You're going to hand counsel.
Speaker 1: I don't even just cherry pick through history. I don't
Speaker 1: even think you know what it is. I just explained
Speaker 1: it to you. Sales, all the Scotsmen, all the Scotsmen
Speaker 1: do this, and then you show an example of someone
Speaker 1: not doing it, and they say, oh, he's not really
Speaker 1: a Scotsman. That's exactly obvious. They know it. And that's
Speaker 1: what you're doing, exactly what you could when you said
Speaker 1: that only the true Christians are the ones that believe
Speaker 1: my canon, and you can't give.
Speaker 3: It only the true Christians. Yes, you did all Orthodox,
Speaker 3: all Protestant.
Speaker 1: All Catholics sixty six books as the scripture. That's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that we all accept it if we
Speaker 1: have different arguments or bases for it. I never said
Speaker 1: that the people that aren't saved couldn't pick out the
Speaker 1: right canon. I never said that. You said that the
Speaker 1: true Christians believed in the sixty six canon script. Yes,
Speaker 1: you didn't believe that. So name one of those people
Speaker 1: in the first, second, and third century.
Speaker 3: I did Paul Timothy after the Apostles, because all of
Speaker 3: these people were after the Apostles.
Speaker 1: That's begging the question. I'm not going to point to
Speaker 1: some church fathers, and he is not to say, because
Speaker 1: I don't care. They're so like Catholic, they'll be like
Speaker 1: saying name is popular Catholic today. That exams what I
Speaker 1: care about that? Do you have an example of one
Speaker 1: or not I have pointed to Saint Jerome?
Speaker 3: He's not in the second You don't have that many
Speaker 3: examples of anybody giving actually in this in the first,
Speaker 3: second and third century.
Speaker 1: There's not. There's like huge groups all these different people.
Speaker 1: By the way, there's no there's small. There's small. You know.
Speaker 1: It's not all of these red books up there. That's
Speaker 1: the pre This is just snowing with everybody. Look at
Speaker 1: all these books books. It's not books. This is all
Speaker 1: of the pre nicing church fathers. It's about just trust me, bro.
Speaker 1: It's not just trust me, bro. It's a famous set
Speaker 1: of church fathers, the first ten volumes. What are you
Speaker 1: talk about? Just trust me, bro? You don't even know
Speaker 1: what this is. You think that there's not a lot
Speaker 1: of documentation. How many?
Speaker 3: How many church fathers have a canon list that we
Speaker 3: can look to in the second and third century.
Speaker 1: Give me a number that argues for me, You idiot,
Speaker 1: that's my That helps my case, you dummy.
Speaker 3: How did they know what the scriptures were to pass
Speaker 3: down so that they could end up canonizing it?
Speaker 1: They know by ecumenical councils getting together and before the
Speaker 1: Federal Council, before the ecamenical council. The fact that there
Speaker 1: are different councils debating and discussing this for centuries proves
Speaker 1: that they were not operating on solo scripture and refuge
Speaker 1: you in the second century, how did someone know what
Speaker 1: was the Bible? They were not going on only the Bible.
Speaker 1: They couldn't read. They go to hear the liturgy, they
Speaker 1: couldn't read. Yes, most people in the Roman Empire couldn't read, idiot,
Speaker 1: So how did they know what things have passed down?
Speaker 1: Do you think that most people in the Roman Empire
Speaker 1: were literate?
Speaker 4: I have no idea what the literacy rates in Rome were.
Speaker 1: I just think it's I think it's ridiculous to claim
Speaker 1: that most people in these churches can't read. This is
Speaker 1: a well known fact. It's well known, dude, it's well
Speaker 1: the population. This is an idiot, This is a funny.
Speaker 1: Can you give me a source on it? You make
Speaker 1: these assertions, you make these crazy. It's not everybody you
Speaker 1: can't read in the second century. It's not a crazy assertion.
Speaker 1: It's common knowledge. I shouldn't have to common It is
Speaker 1: yeah that the Roman. Most people in the Roman were illiterate.
Speaker 1: The literate class for the aristocrats, idiot. Now again, tell
Speaker 1: me who in the second and third century before Nicea
Speaker 1: has your Protestant Canada? Just name one.
Speaker 3: Every Christian could recognize God's word, that is in the
Speaker 3: Fellow in the second century and in the third sent
Speaker 3: not what the scriptures were to pass? How you define
Speaker 3: they know what to copy because they knew it was
Speaker 3: already God's word.
Speaker 1: They may represent them name, name of theologial church father.
Speaker 1: This is just not You're just you're basically just trying.
Speaker 3: You're just trying to create a straw man argument that
Speaker 3: doesn't even need to You said that I don't need
Speaker 3: a church father.
Speaker 1: How did Timothy know when you sat down? How did
Speaker 1: any of these churches know what the past?
Speaker 3: How is the church at ephicis supposed to know that
Speaker 3: the Book of Revelation is the Word of God without
Speaker 3: a council Apostolic tradition. How does someone in the Old
Speaker 3: Testament know what it was Scripture.
Speaker 1: I already answered that question earlier when I talked about
Speaker 1: levitical you didn't give an answer. You said Church literally appointed.
Speaker 1: You talked about the Old Testament structure of how they understood,
Speaker 1: and went to how the law executed and how the
Speaker 1: Levites would make judgments and how prophets had to teach.
Speaker 1: And you reject the Hebrew canon. You the Hebrew can.
Speaker 1: It's not because you build the apocryph. It's the Rabbinic canon.
Speaker 1: It's not the Hebrew canon. Your heretic. I'm a heretic
Speaker 1: for rejecting the apocrypha. So do you believe that king
Speaker 1: of a Syria follow the Rabbinic christ rejecting? Do you
Speaker 1: believe that the king of Assyria and lived in Nineveh?
Speaker 1: That's a general title. Jews would oftentimes call their kings,
Speaker 1: i'm Alek Pharaoh. All the way into book Revelation, they
Speaker 1: call their enemies by Pharaoh or Amelek or anything like that.
Speaker 1: So you're just fundamentally an ignorant person. And I answered
Speaker 1: your questions about the Old Time, answered you multiple.
Speaker 3: Times questioning if Neb was the king of Assyria. Did
Speaker 3: you not hear the answer, which is a historically inaccurate statement.
Speaker 1: How did I answer your question? State what I didn't
Speaker 1: answer it. I gave you an answer. You just said, oh,
Speaker 1: sometimes they just use these other titles for people, But
Speaker 1: you didn't. Really, I didn't say sometimes. I gave you examples.
Speaker 1: In the Book of Revelation they talk about the city
Speaker 1: being Sodom and Gomorrah. Was it Sodom and gamorentual picture.
Speaker 1: Jews to this day still call their enemies amelek. It's
Speaker 1: a Jewish practice. You say, we reject the Hebrew canon.
Speaker 1: So you're saying you following of it's the Rabbinic canon.
Speaker 1: It's not. This is just a stupid person. They the
Speaker 1: New Testament says even in the Book of Revelation that
Speaker 1: the enemies of God's people are Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Babylon.
Speaker 1: Those empires are dead. And I'm telling you, even to
Speaker 1: this day, when Nathanna who calls people amelek, he's reflecting
Speaker 1: that tradition of always calling their enemies by the name
Speaker 1: of some king or emperor. It's a well known thing
Speaker 1: in the academic literature. So again, you're just expressing your
Speaker 1: own ignorance. But I already answered your question about the
Speaker 1: Old Testament to the law and to the testimony. The
Speaker 1: law is the Torah. The testimony is the interpretation of
Speaker 1: the Torah. Why is Matthew supposed to be in the Gospel?
Speaker 4: It has the divine voice? It's internally How do you
Speaker 4: know that?
Speaker 1: How do you know that?
Speaker 3: And tell the difference between you know, my wife's voice
Speaker 3: and another woman's obviously my sheep hear my voice.
Speaker 1: That's a subjective argument. How does it subjective? Can you
Speaker 1: tell the different between eighties music and a him? What's
Speaker 1: the subjective in eighties music? And is the subjective? What
Speaker 1: is the objective? Public argument? To know the difference?
Speaker 4: It's internally consistent. It's historically received.
Speaker 1: By the question internally consistent with what? That's what? That's
Speaker 1: what you're you're taking all these arguments and you won't
Speaker 1: apply them to your church. I'm actually giving you that's
Speaker 1: a two quote way. Why are we supposed to accept
Speaker 1: that Matthew is included in the text? You said because
Speaker 1: it has a divine voice? That's the thing in question.
Speaker 1: How do we know that has a divine voice? That's
Speaker 1: what's in question. How do you know it's it's a
Speaker 1: your Why do you why are you doing it too.
Speaker 3: Quote way, I answered your question, you didn't you what
Speaker 3: was your answer? Then I asked you, while you believe it?
Speaker 3: And you won't answer. I said, it has the divine voice,
Speaker 3: it's internally consistent with the rest of scriptures.
Speaker 1: It's been received by Christian voice. When what's in question?
Speaker 1: Because I can tell the difference between God, so you
Speaker 1: so ultimately everybody that so you are the ultimately? So
Speaker 1: you ultimately do you know your church is right? So
Speaker 1: it's a purely subjective argument. I'm talking about the tradition
Speaker 1: that Matthew wrote Matthew. Do you think that matters apostolic authorship?
Speaker 4: If it didn't say Matthew at the top, it wouldn't
Speaker 4: change anything for me.
Speaker 1: Dude, Why does it? How does it make any difference
Speaker 1: in your life? You know that that's a Matthew and
Speaker 1: not as does apostolic authorship matter?
Speaker 3: Obviously, we believe the Apostles were ordained by God and
Speaker 3: they authorship of Matthew. The Book of Hebrews has no
Speaker 3: clear apostolic identified and in.
Speaker 1: The case of the Gospels of Matthew doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: I do think that the apostles are the ones that
Speaker 3: saw the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. That's what makes them apostle,
Speaker 3: and so the gospel by eyewitnesses.
Speaker 1: Luke says, stop deflecting. In the case of the Gospel
Speaker 1: of Matthew, does apostolic authorship matter?
Speaker 4: It's a point of evidence.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, how do you know that Matthew the apostle
Speaker 1: wrote it? Obviously?
Speaker 4: Christians receive this gospel for someone that told them that.
Speaker 1: How do you know that?
Speaker 4: How do you know because it was passed down through
Speaker 4: who through tradition?
Speaker 1: Oh? Thank you. You just ended the debate right there.
Speaker 1: So I never said that.
Speaker 3: You never said that traditions were everything that you rely
Speaker 3: on tradition we have and what I argued for. Okay,
Speaker 3: I've never said that traditions are wrong. Obviously, I didn't
Speaker 3: write this King James Bible.
Speaker 1: To me?
Speaker 3: How do I know that my traditions are right because
Speaker 3: they're internally consistent with the scripture.
Speaker 1: How do you know that? You tra the scriptures are
Speaker 1: the thing in question? To appeal to the scriptures is
Speaker 1: begging the question.
Speaker 4: Is the scripture divine?
Speaker 1: Of course that has nothing to do with my parent
Speaker 1: in your opening statement said it's not divine. I didn't
Speaker 1: make the scripture. Is in fact we're equivocating again, I said,
Speaker 1: I'll show you the clip where you see quivicating. I said,
Speaker 1: there's a difference between the written text as word and
Speaker 1: the second person that God had his word. That's all
Speaker 1: I said. So you keep it with.
Speaker 3: The scriptures are divine, their divine inspired. Do you believe
Speaker 3: they're infallible?
Speaker 1: Yes? Okay, So if anything is contradictory to them, is
Speaker 1: it also infallible? Obviously if it contradicts it, No, it's
Speaker 1: not infallible. Okay.
Speaker 3: So if your tradition of your church is in contrast
Speaker 3: to something in this book, would it be would it
Speaker 3: be right?
Speaker 1: Uh? It would be wrong. But it's also said biship
Speaker 1: must be the husband of one wife, and your church
Speaker 1: teaches that bishops are supposed to be unmarried.
Speaker 4: How am I supposed to know that you're right?
Speaker 1: Right? Well, episcopacy can refer to the twofold office. It
Speaker 1: can be a presbyter or it can be a bishop.
Speaker 1: And there is an episcopacy because in Acts one we
Speaker 1: read about episcopacy that uh, Judas had his office or
Speaker 1: episcopacy replaced. And when we look at the Council of Nicia.
Speaker 1: It talks about the episcopacy and bishops. So do you
Speaker 1: where's your episcopacy? Well?
Speaker 3: In Acts Chapter one that you appealed to, they replaced
Speaker 3: an apostle that did not replace What's what's a bishop
Speaker 3: is different?
Speaker 1: Here? Was is not a bishop? In Actually one? What's
Speaker 1: the Greek word.
Speaker 4: Like for presbytery?
Speaker 1: Does it? Why does it matter? Because the word is
Speaker 1: episcopos in Greek.
Speaker 3: They're obviously appointing someone in the of an apostle because
Speaker 3: he had to be with him from the.
Speaker 1: Very Why is there even a successor to an apostle?
Speaker 1: They they thought it was good to replace him, But
Speaker 1: it doesn't even really matter because that guy's so they
Speaker 1: had apostolic succession?
Speaker 4: Who's they?
Speaker 1: In Acts one? They are the apostles? What do you
Speaker 1: mean there's no succession? They are the apostles. Peter is
Speaker 1: the apostle?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 1: Are you this stupid? In Acts one they replace Judas
Speaker 1: in his episcopacy. Why is there a seat replacement, a successor?
Speaker 1: They're replacing him, but again does that matter if if
Speaker 1: he is, is there a successor to the apostle? Okay?
Speaker 1: Is the apostle a successor? Or is he just an
Speaker 1: additional apostle in Act one? Why are you deflecting the
Speaker 1: Paul in Acts one? Is there a success? Do you
Speaker 1: believe there's only twelve apostles? Is there a success to
Speaker 1: be a perfect succession of twelve apostles? Apostles allowed to
Speaker 1: take again? Is there a successor? In Act one to
Speaker 1: Judas in his office of episcopals? He or not in
Speaker 1: his office of being an apostle episcopost? Is there a
Speaker 1: successor to the episcopost and Act one? In the twelve
Speaker 1: they made it? They answer, why are you so dishonest?
Speaker 4: I don't I don't use the word episcopacy here in
Speaker 4: the English?
Speaker 1: It's the Greek word? You idiot? Does it?
Speaker 2: What is?
Speaker 1: This person is too stupid? This is so stupid? So again,
Speaker 1: do we have any He doesn't care about the Greeks?
Speaker 1: Did say I didn't care about the Greek? You just did?
Speaker 1: You said? I don't? You said I don't care what
Speaker 1: the Greek is? I read the English. You're an idiot.
Speaker 1: I don't care to go back to the Greek to try.
Speaker 2: It?
Speaker 1: Is here? Is there a successor to the episcopos and
Speaker 1: acts one to the apostles.
Speaker 4: They obviously appointed Matthias in the position of Judas.
Speaker 1: No, what agrees with that? To what is there a
Speaker 1: successor to be one of the twelve? Is there? So
Speaker 1: you won't say successor because you know that means absolute succession?
Speaker 1: How can you succeed? Or Judas isn't even saved? Judas
Speaker 1: is a devil, heretics. Does that have to do? Is
Speaker 1: just taking his place?
Speaker 4: It says, give his office to another in the.
Speaker 1: Old test, James, his office is episcopacy, idiot, that's a
Speaker 1: successor to the apostles.
Speaker 4: Okay, he gave his office to him?
Speaker 1: A right? Why does that matter? James? Can we move on?
Speaker 2: This is close to him. We normally go into the
Speaker 2: Q and A as the open dialogue is usually about
Speaker 2: an hour. If you guys have any final threads you'd
Speaker 2: like to draw together from the debate, this would be
Speaker 2: the time. Otherwise you will move into the Q and A.
Speaker 2: Any last thoughts?
Speaker 1: What about how about a brief closing statements?
Speaker 2: Him and me, Yeah, let's do it. How about three
Speaker 2: minutes each? In go ahead, Master John, as any of
Speaker 2: you'd like to go first?
Speaker 3: We didn't really make much ground on this particular discussion,
Speaker 3: and Jay doesn't want to hold his logic to his
Speaker 3: own church obviously. He just wants to constantly try to
Speaker 3: claim that we can't know what the scripture is without
Speaker 3: his quote church. But they never explains where his actual
Speaker 3: church comes from. There's nothing in the Bible that teaches
Speaker 3: is infallible. Historically speaking, the Orthodox Church has many different errors,
Speaker 3: many different problems, and they've.
Speaker 1: Elevated their tradition above scripture and above Christ. The authority
Speaker 1: in the Orthodox Church is not Christ. It is their opinion.
Speaker 3: They simply elevate icons, they elevate their understanding of.
Speaker 4: Bishops, and of course they believe in theosis.
Speaker 3: Their apocrypha teaches that almsgiving purges away every sin, whereas
Speaker 3: the Bible teaches that it's through faith in Jesus Christ's
Speaker 3: blood that gives us the forgiveness of sins, and it's
Speaker 3: only through the Gospel that we can be saved. The
Speaker 3: Bible teaches that once you're saved, the Holy Spirit dwells
Speaker 3: inside of you, and Jesus Christ said, my sheep, hear
Speaker 3: my voice, and they will not follow a stranger.
Speaker 1: That's why we don't follow the apocrypha because it's.
Speaker 3: A strange voice, it has historical inaccuracies, it teaches false doctrine,
Speaker 3: and of course their church also teaches false doctrine. They
Speaker 3: have ecumenical councils where they say that icons are blasphemous
Speaker 3: and idolatrists and seven hundred and fifty four a d.
Speaker 3: And then magically in seven eighty seven AD they claim no,
Speaker 3: that was a robber council, didn't really count.
Speaker 1: Trust me bro, which is really the Orthodox position. In
Speaker 1: a nutshell, trusts me bro.
Speaker 3: He creates a position in which the first Christians at
Speaker 3: the church at Ephesus could not understand what the scripture is.
Speaker 3: We have so many examples of churches in the New
Speaker 3: Testament having so many problems constantly needing to be corrected
Speaker 3: by scripture. Jay's church won't be corrected by scripture, so
Speaker 3: it's gone off the rails and there's no hope unless
Speaker 3: they actually appeal back to scripture to allow themselves to
Speaker 3: be corrected. It's interesting in this particular debate, Jay wouldn't
Speaker 3: answer my questions. He just simply tries to use philosophy
Speaker 3: and trying to claim fallacies in order to avoid actually
Speaker 3: defending his position. He just simply wants to claim that
Speaker 3: my position's wrong, therefore he must be right. He doesn't
Speaker 3: actually defend his position whatsoever. His church is claimed to
Speaker 3: be infallible, he has no verse to teach such a thing.
Speaker 3: And he's just like the Pharisees to day, where they
Speaker 3: rejected the word of God so that they can keep
Speaker 3: their tradition.
Speaker 2: We'll kick it over to Jay for his three minute
Speaker 2: closing as well, and then we're jumping into your questions
Speaker 2: folks from the Q and A.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this person was the dumbest person I've ever debated.
Speaker 1: There's a new person beyond t Dump or the Kurgan
Speaker 1: or anyone else. I've never debated anyone this stubborn and
Speaker 1: stupid and foolish and ignorant. I answered every one of
Speaker 1: his objections explicitly with absolute nuance. He actually thinks that
Speaker 1: saying philosophy and fallacies don't matter in a debate, which
Speaker 1: again shows that he's a fundamentally stupid person. This is
Speaker 1: what you get with independent fundamentalists, Bible churches, and people
Speaker 1: that promote cult leaders like Steven Anderson, absolute lunatics and psychotics.
Speaker 1: Is you get this kind of ignorance that is so
Speaker 1: hard press and so closed minded to actually listen to
Speaker 1: the arguments that are being made to say that it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter about the church fathers in the first, second,
Speaker 1: or third century when it comes to the canon. I
Speaker 1: don't care. But there were true Christians there that had
Speaker 1: my Protestant canon, even though I don't know of any,
Speaker 1: and I can't name any. They were just there, trust me, Bro.
Speaker 1: So he's actually the one doing the trust me, bro
Speaker 1: when I answer specifically with absolute nuance every single one
Speaker 1: of his questions. We saw in the first half of
Speaker 1: the debate, I give you multiple examples of the Word
Speaker 1: of God not being just written texts, And it took
Speaker 1: multiple times of him actually admitting that and then backtracking
Speaker 1: and falling back on his fallacy of equivalents. So all
Speaker 1: this debate was was his own personal, subjective argumentation and
Speaker 1: assumption that the divine voice that he feels is telling
Speaker 1: telling him that the Protestant canon is the correct canon,
Speaker 1: when in the first, second and third century when he
Speaker 1: liked to appeal to pre Nicia, there's no one that
Speaker 1: has his canon. And again when Trent Horne debated James White,
Speaker 1: Trent got James White to admit that nobody in the
Speaker 1: first several centuries is operating on solar scriptura. That means
Speaker 1: that in those centuries, soul scriptura wasn't true because most
Speaker 1: churches didn't have the full complete canon. Thus it was
Speaker 1: impossible for them to actually operate on the principle of
Speaker 1: solar scriptura. Guess what we have thousands of pages of
Speaker 1: the writings of the Church fathers, which he laughed at
Speaker 1: and mocked, not knowing anything about it in his own
Speaker 1: stupid ignorance, when in reality, when we go read them,
Speaker 1: they give us an absolutely amazing picture of the worship,
Speaker 1: of the liturgy, of the imagery of the Eucharist, all
Speaker 1: going on in the earliest centuries of the Church, second
Speaker 1: and third century. So, just like all the other Judaized
Speaker 1: Protestant heretics, he thinks that the rabbinic canon of the
Speaker 1: post Apostolic Christ, rejecting Jews, is the right canon. He
Speaker 1: doesn't even know that. Aaron Aus and Justin Martyer talked
Speaker 1: about the rabbinic Jews who formed the protomasoretic text, which
Speaker 1: is the Rabbinic tradition, altered and changed their text against
Speaker 1: the septuagen tradition which was so replete with references to Christ.
Speaker 1: He also doesn't know that every Protestant scholar who has
Speaker 1: any significant academic credentials or degree, whether it's F. F.
Speaker 1: Bruce or whether it's Lee McDonald or anybody, they will
Speaker 1: admit that the Jutero Canon includes the Subtuagi and includes
Speaker 1: the deuterocononical texts, and the New Testament cites them dozens
Speaker 1: of times throughout its passages. I argued very clearly that
Speaker 1: oral tradition is in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Speaker 1: I gave at least a dozen examples. He didn't even
Speaker 1: address any of those. He acted like I made no
Speaker 1: scriptural arguments and never went to scripture, which is an
Speaker 1: absolute lie. This man is an absolute joke.
Speaker 2: We are going to go to the Q and A
Speaker 2: one remind folks please don't copy and paste in the
Speaker 2: live chat. Also, as you can see the bottom, ready
Speaker 2: to your screen, Debate kon eight is happening this summer
Speaker 2: and one of our sponsors is main first project in
Speaker 2: addition to Roar. If you would like to become a
Speaker 2: sponsor for debatecon eight, email me at Modern Day Debate
Speaker 2: at gmail dot com. Otherwise you can click on the
Speaker 2: tickets link for Debacon eight. It also shows sponsorship sponsorship
Speaker 2: options for your organization to help get the word out.
Speaker 2: We're gonna jump into these questions and we're gonna move fast.
Speaker 2: So thank you very much for your questions. Folks. Are
Speaker 2: you guys okay with rebuttals or would you prefer to
Speaker 2: minimize rebuttals? I would suggest, because we do have a
Speaker 2: ton of questions that we want to get through all
Speaker 2: these before you guys have to leave, if we can
Speaker 2: minimize rebuttals, that would be the best way to go.
Speaker 2: It's fine, you got it. This one from to appreciate
Speaker 2: your question. Holy smokes, we do have a lot. John
Speaker 2: Rock says, Jesus, Jesus is God. Thanks Jay for winning
Speaker 2: the debate. Jerome Elaine says, So the Baptists historically only
Speaker 2: go back by a guy named John Smith in the
Speaker 2: sixteen hundreds. So was this church doctrines before that? I
Speaker 2: don't know what that means. I don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, again, they're just they're just saying that my church
Speaker 3: history doesn't go all the way back.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Again, I'm not gonna deny that John Smith is a
Speaker 3: credit as being the first quote Baptist you know, this
Speaker 3: is the label that was given to him. I'm not
Speaker 3: going to deny that the Protestant Reformation isn't trying to
Speaker 3: do things new and opposition to.
Speaker 4: The Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: The Catholic Church got off the rails, and the Protestant
Speaker 3: Reformation was an attempt to go back to the scripture
Speaker 3: and compare their traditions with the scripture. And that's why
Speaker 3: you have a plethora of different things that happen. It's
Speaker 3: not like just Baptists came out or just one group.
Speaker 3: Obviously there was multiple different groups that come out. My
Speaker 3: view is that there was a corruption in the Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: It's corrected by scripture.
Speaker 2: This one from I hate to do that, but just
Speaker 2: because we have so many sort to go rapid speed,
Speaker 2: Laman Ross says Jmi rockhor brother, be gentle. This one
Speaker 2: from Jerome Alain says the KJV sixteen eleven Bible has
Speaker 2: the duderal cannon.
Speaker 3: That's true. It's in the middle. It has apogrypha on
Speaker 3: every single page. It doesn't actually give you like a
Speaker 3: description like all the rest of the text. It's not
Speaker 3: mixed in the so it was clearly set aside, and
Speaker 3: so It definitely was included for historical purposes.
Speaker 4: But are you as canon?
Speaker 1: Are you a monarchist? No? Okay? Why am I supposed
Speaker 1: to care what King James and his scholars did.
Speaker 4: You don't have to if you don't want to. I
Speaker 4: just like the product.
Speaker 1: Why in your review ought we accept your King James version?
Speaker 3: I mean, the King James Bible is eighty five percent
Speaker 3: the work of William Tyndale, and the King James Bible
Speaker 3: is a revision of the Bishop's Bible.
Speaker 4: So it's not just King James.
Speaker 1: Why are we supposed to accept that?
Speaker 2: Why?
Speaker 1: They?
Speaker 3: Again, we understand that the Bible should be in vanacular
Speaker 3: languages or vulgar languages, not there was.
Speaker 1: A there was a Catholic translation before that into English.
Speaker 1: So why are we supposed to accept that.
Speaker 4: They believed that the Latin curate had been correct.
Speaker 1: I don't care what they believed. Asking you, what's the
Speaker 1: argument that that's binding on Christians the original?
Speaker 4: He doesn't match this.
Speaker 2: One from Thomas Hayward says same level of argument as
Speaker 2: Pastor p Well, who's Pastor Pete?
Speaker 1: Somebody I'd debated someone a while.
Speaker 2: Back sixty six book King James Bible. Hey, amen. This
Speaker 2: one from mister Jackson's quote. Christ is not here physically
Speaker 2: unquote literally the Church, dude, the bride of one flesh
Speaker 2: with the Lord. The Bible is not the logos and
Speaker 2: only has authority by being a part of his church's
Speaker 2: holy tradition.
Speaker 1: Any thoughts, Jonathan, I mean, I think that we both
Speaker 1: believe that Jesus Christ is the Word.
Speaker 4: So I don't think we agree with that comment.
Speaker 2: Tony the Baptist says, Pator Shelley is pointing to Scripture
Speaker 2: as his source of authority, where the Orthodox is pointing
Speaker 2: to his church fathers as his source of authority, and
Speaker 2: yet accusing Pastor Shelley of circular reasoning. Oh the irony.
Speaker 1: No. I asked him for a basis for why the
Speaker 1: Protestant can not to be the case, and he admitted
Speaker 1: throughout the debate that he also relies on tradition for
Speaker 1: apostolic authorship. And I asked the question about normandive authority,
Speaker 1: why we ought to accept that in some binding sense,
Speaker 1: and he has no answer for any of that.
Speaker 2: You got it the scripture putting up a poll in
Speaker 2: just a second, So hanging tight, folks. This one coming
Speaker 2: in from Tony the Baptist says, oh no, we got that.
Speaker 2: Amelion Assenic says, question, pastor, can you read two Timothy
Speaker 2: four twelve through thirteen parentheses? What books, Paul he's talking about?
Speaker 2: And could this be oral tradition?
Speaker 3: He was writing, Well, you're talking about preach the word.
Speaker 3: I'm just turning there. But he said two through four,
Speaker 3: preach the word be incident in season, out of season,
Speaker 3: reproved buke exhorbitth.
Speaker 2: All along four twelve through thirteen, Oh.
Speaker 3: Twelve, I'm sorry, and tike a kiss? Have I sent
Speaker 3: to Ephesus the cloak that I left at troass with Carpus.
Speaker 3: I don't understand the point of it. I think they
Speaker 3: meant two through four, but I could be wrong.
Speaker 2: Maybe, but it does say two Timothy four twelve through thirteen.
Speaker 2: Mister Jack says the Bible is eternal in all caps.
Speaker 2: Bro really moses eternal? Mary literally Muslim level eternal creation stupidity.
Speaker 2: Only God is eternal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, forever thy word is settled in heaven.
Speaker 1: Oh Lord? Yeah? Is that the Bible? Yes, so the
Speaker 1: Bible is eternal in heaven.
Speaker 3: This is is a polytheist. Where are the words of
Speaker 3: God in heaven? The exist the second person of Christ.
Speaker 1: They exist in him. So there's multiple eternals.
Speaker 3: Christ is the Word, so he's always existed. Okay, he
Speaker 3: said the words. I don't believe what separate the two.
Speaker 1: Okay, So where's the propositions in the Book of Hebrews
Speaker 1: in eternity? You don't even heaven is something that was
Speaker 1: where heaven is something that's created. So no, I said,
Speaker 1: you said, in eternity, what's heaven? I got to do
Speaker 1: with them? Somebody internity? You literally say, where are the
Speaker 1: Word of God in heaven? You said that in eternity, Yes,
Speaker 1: it's always existed. Christ is the Word. And so the
Speaker 1: Book of Hebrews is from all eternity.
Speaker 4: And always existed. Where in the second person, the.
Speaker 1: Book of Hebrews is not something that was physical bullets,
Speaker 1: but the words.
Speaker 2: This one.
Speaker 1: So the words of Paul are in Christ in all eternity.
Speaker 4: The Word existed before anything was ever created.
Speaker 1: The words of Paul when he when he starts the book,
Speaker 1: Christ knows the in from the and ask if he
Speaker 1: knew it. You said the words themselves, Yes, the words themselves. Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you. This is this is so stupid.
Speaker 2: This one from Rachel Wilson says, does Pastor Jonathan think
Speaker 2: Christ exist said before the incarnation? Does he know where
Speaker 2: Christ was in the Old Testament?
Speaker 3: Yes, Christ existed before the incarnation. He has pre pre
Speaker 3: incarnate appearances. The Bible says in the beginning, was the word.
Speaker 4: He's with God. It's very clear he's he has no origin.
Speaker 1: Is that the Bible? Is that the Bible in Genesis one.
Speaker 4: I don't believe you can separate Christ from the Word.
Speaker 1: You already admitted. And John one that the Word became flesh.
Speaker 1: That's not talking about the Bible. Did the Bible begin flesh?
Speaker 4: I said, it wasn't like the scripture, like the physical pace.
Speaker 1: That's the Bible in my hand, that's the Bible. Christ
Speaker 1: is the Word of God. Yes, Christ is not the book.
Speaker 1: You think Jesus is a book. No, He's not a
Speaker 1: physical question. That's then the Bible is not eternal. The
Speaker 1: physical book is physical. Body is an.
Speaker 2: Eternal Jonathan, give you the last word on this, because
Speaker 2: the question is for you.
Speaker 4: Jesus was incarnated.
Speaker 3: His physical body came into existence in Mary's womb when
Speaker 3: he was conceived. The Bible was obviously a manifestation of
Speaker 3: God's word. That already existed from eternity past where they as.
Speaker 2: I hate to do it, but I got I gotta
Speaker 2: have to give somebody the least er. Mastered by Grace
Speaker 2: says question for Jay, did you say in your opening
Speaker 2: quote of the scriptures are not divine?
Speaker 1: I e.
Speaker 2: And their nature quote? They are not the voice of God.
Speaker 1: No, I said, They're not the divine person of the Sun.
Speaker 1: I said that they are inspired, they are an errant,
Speaker 1: they are theo Neustos, They're God breathed. They are not
Speaker 1: the second person of the Godhead. So this person is
Speaker 1: fundamentally stupid and can't see the difference between the second
Speaker 1: person and the book that describes him. There was a
Speaker 1: quote that Jay said, he said the Bible is a
Speaker 1: created medium.
Speaker 4: It is not divine. That was a direct quote in
Speaker 4: his opening statement.
Speaker 1: It not divine in itself in the sense of being uncreated.
Speaker 1: You believe the Bible's uncreated? You're a Muslim polytheist.
Speaker 2: This one from do appreciate it. JB. Peltier says, Pratts
Speaker 2: act like Jesus ascended and threw the book down on
Speaker 2: his way up.
Speaker 3: Correct again, all I get is all he get is
Speaker 3: these ad hom and you're a Muslim, you believe these bizarre.
Speaker 2: Muslim emilitian accentic, says pastor, how do you know that,
Speaker 2: Matthew wrote Matthew, or Mark wrote Mark, or Luke wrote Luke.
Speaker 1: He doesn't that tradition. I accepted that that tradition. Okay, exactly,
Speaker 1: you got it.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, we just have this new thing in live
Speaker 2: chat where you can send gifts. We just enabled it.
Speaker 2: Thank you for the gift, Christian Roach. This is new.
Speaker 2: I've never It's got the graphic and everything beautiful. This
Speaker 2: one from Mason Marcus typical w for the king of Wigsantium.
Speaker 2: What the This one from Kevin Blackwell says for Pastor John,
Speaker 2: Jesus says he is one with the Church. Where does
Speaker 2: he say he is one with the Bible? Where does
Speaker 2: the Bible say Jesus left the Bible.
Speaker 4: I don't understand the left the Bible comment.
Speaker 3: But again I'm just gonna be repeating myself, because the
Speaker 3: Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.
Speaker 4: He dwelt among us we beheld his glory.
Speaker 3: The Bible says in First John, chapter number one, it
Speaker 3: says that which was from the beginning which we have heard,
Speaker 3: which you have seen with our eyes, which you have
Speaker 3: looked upon in our hands have handled of the word
Speaker 3: of life. The Bible says that Jesus Christ on written
Speaker 3: on his thigh, when your turns, has the name written
Speaker 3: on his thigh, the Word of God.
Speaker 1: You're equivocating again because this is a created book. And
Speaker 1: obviously when we say the Bible, that means a canon
Speaker 1: or rule or a list of books. Obviously it's talking
Speaker 1: about a book. You believe that there's an eternal Koran
Speaker 1: like the Muslims, which is your KGV, which is idiotic
Speaker 1: and foolish. You already admitted multiple multip time in debate,
Speaker 1: there's a distinction between the word may flesh and the
Speaker 1: book the Bible.
Speaker 3: I said, sometimes the verse is describing a difference, but
Speaker 3: I'm not saying there is a difference.
Speaker 1: So you actually believe that this is Jesus incarnate, No,
Speaker 1: not the physical copy, and you admit that it's a difference,
Speaker 1: you idiot.
Speaker 4: It's the words inside.
Speaker 2: This one from you. Appreciate your question. JB. Peltier strikes again, says,
Speaker 2: human language, paper and bindings are creatures. The world is
Speaker 2: a person who mystically informs human people to write text
Speaker 2: and interpret it true, says. All I'm hearing here is
Speaker 2: a bunch of rigamaro that came from Captain Tazariak, who
Speaker 2: the other night referred to j as JD. Dyer. Jerome
Speaker 2: Elaine says, see how the Protestants argue just like the Muslims.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the belief that there's an eternal book, which is
Speaker 1: what he said multiple times, is literally a rabbinic and
Speaker 1: because it's also rabbinic, it's thus a talmudic in Islamic position.
Speaker 2: Don't you take that? Jonathan?
Speaker 4: The word of God is is eternal? Is this is
Speaker 4: what the scripture says?
Speaker 1: Are you of with?
Speaker 4: He wants to twist the definitions of these words and means.
Speaker 1: You search the scriptures because you think that it is
Speaker 1: in them that you have eternal life. When it's day
Speaker 1: that there witness of me. That's a distinction between the it's.
Speaker 3: Ironic you keep quoting that verse because of our future idiocy,
Speaker 3: and you know.
Speaker 4: Because you don't have salvation, you believe in theosa there
Speaker 4: we go.
Speaker 1: So that's that's all he has. He's so he's great.
Speaker 1: He's about the rage quit. I've never been close to
Speaker 1: is I don't have salvation, So what does that have
Speaker 1: to do with that passage? That's what Jesus Christ is
Speaker 1: telling him to the Pharisees. He said, you should say
Speaker 1: make a dissation. Actually is just like you said, you
Speaker 1: don't make a distinction, separate. Does it make a distinction
Speaker 1: between the scriptures on the word. The scripture teaches that
Speaker 1: the word of God is Christ. The word of that
Speaker 1: passes make John chapter one says the Word of life.
Speaker 1: Does that passes make a distinction between the scripture? Is
Speaker 1: in the person of the word.
Speaker 3: Jesus Christ is appealing to literal parchment that has the
Speaker 3: words written down on them, and he wants called them,
Speaker 3: wants them.
Speaker 1: That's what the Bible is. You're idiot.
Speaker 3: So obviously he's not saying, look at my body and
Speaker 3: figured it out. He's saying, look at the parchment. But
Speaker 3: the thing is he is from the scripture. Transcends that
Speaker 3: he is just from the scriptures.
Speaker 1: No, you, it's you can't understand that. You can't you
Speaker 1: I have a Muslim polytheistic position. How did they handle
Speaker 1: the Word of life and John one? In first John one?
Speaker 4: How did they?
Speaker 1: Because he's in he's incarnate they touched his body. That's
Speaker 1: the word of life. So he's the word of life.
Speaker 4: Amen, Jesus, I think the word of this is.
Speaker 1: The incarnate word of God. You're an idolator. No I did.
Speaker 3: They were the word of touching a person. That is,
Speaker 3: this is not the Word of life was manifested. The
Speaker 3: word was manifested in flesh, not in a book. Amen,
Speaker 3: he wasn't pret That's my argument. But again, you just
Speaker 3: don't believe the word of God in the person in
Speaker 3: not in a book.
Speaker 1: You're a Jew, you are a Muslim. So the Jews
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ was the word. You have the Jews, Jesus
Speaker 1: of the just making stuff up.
Speaker 3: You just make these wild accusations that you have the
Speaker 3: position of am I a Jew for believing Jesus Christ.
Speaker 3: You just made a lie and just ridiculous, railing accusation
Speaker 3: that you can't prove.
Speaker 1: Of the texts and the Muslim the text show me
Speaker 1: a Jew. You are believe Jesus Christ is the word
Speaker 1: of God. You are a Muslim in your Muslim believes
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ.
Speaker 4: Is the Word of God.
Speaker 2: We must move the next one, this one from Jerome Elaine, says,
Speaker 2: see how we got that no name, says Pastor Jonathan
Speaker 2: clearly didn't take the comments under his quote Orthodox. He
Speaker 2: exposed video unquote seriously, this one from Dissent and Resists.
Speaker 2: Don't worry you just like just roll your eyes out it.
Speaker 2: You don't have to give it a response. That's what
Speaker 2: I used to do. But dissent and Resist says so
Speaker 2: by Protestant logic, if Jesus is the Bible, there practically Muslims.
Speaker 2: Because is it not true that Muslims believe that the
Speaker 2: Quran is uncreated while at the same time Allah is uncreated.
Speaker 2: This is pure and utter nonsense.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 3: I do want to comment because here's the thing. The
Speaker 3: Muslims do not believe that Jesus Christ is God. They
Speaker 3: don't believe that Jesus Christ they believe that Jesus. So
Speaker 3: how in the world could be a Muslim They don't believe.
Speaker 3: They do not believe Jesus Christ is the Word of
Speaker 3: God and He's eternal.
Speaker 1: Maximum Adiq here maximum adi q good ad hominem.
Speaker 4: Very impressive.
Speaker 2: We do have to go to the next one. Tony
Speaker 2: the Baptist says, is the Orthodox argument that the Bible
Speaker 2: is not the Word of God.
Speaker 1: No This is equivocation. It is the written testimony to
Speaker 1: the person of the word. You can, in a sense
Speaker 1: call it the word of God. That doesn't mean it's
Speaker 1: the only usage of the Word of God. I've been
Speaker 1: arguing that from the very beginning. This person is just
Speaker 1: fundamently too stupid to make a distinction, which he's already
Speaker 1: admitted multiple times.
Speaker 2: He has to make this one from Kevin Blackwell, says,
Speaker 2: question for Pastor John, you said the KJB has produced fruit.
Speaker 2: How many books were in the first KGB.
Speaker 3: It obviously included the apogaphy in a separate section, but
Speaker 3: it has the sixty six plus the apocryph Sure.
Speaker 1: They didn't.
Speaker 4: They did include as canon.
Speaker 2: Not a massad agent says question for Pastor for the
Speaker 2: first one thy five hundred and even today many people
Speaker 2: were illiterate. How does sola scripture apply to the slow
Speaker 2: boys who were unable to read scripture themselves? Do they
Speaker 2: learn from others?
Speaker 3: Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Speaker 3: So even if you couldn't read, if someone quotes scripture
Speaker 3: or read scripture to you, then you could accept that
Speaker 3: as the word of God. Obviously he just admitted estimate Testament.
Speaker 3: People just amnim Bible out loud and giving the sense
Speaker 3: of the reading, he.
Speaker 2: Admitted, and I do want to let Jonathan finish his
Speaker 2: sentence again.
Speaker 3: You can have someone read the Word of God out
Speaker 3: loud and you can believe it. You don't have to
Speaker 3: be able to read.
Speaker 1: He admitted. My argument at the beginning that when the
Speaker 1: apostles are preaching the oral word of God, as Peter
Speaker 1: says in First Peter, that that is hearing the word
Speaker 1: of God and it's not just reciting the Bible text.
Speaker 1: He admitted that they interpret it, so he's admitting that
Speaker 1: that is the Word of God being preached.
Speaker 2: This one from Do Appreciate Hayden Trent says Paul cannot
Speaker 2: interpret his own own text infallibly. What chance do we have.
Speaker 3: We're guided by the Holy Spirit. Why would we need
Speaker 3: the Holy Spirit if we were infallible? Or if the
Speaker 3: apostle Paul was infallible? Why in One Corinthians chapter seven
Speaker 3: does he have to question whether he has the spirit
Speaker 3: or not if he's infallible in his own personal opinion.
Speaker 4: It's just a flawed argument that doesn't understand the Bible.
Speaker 2: This one from JB. Peltier says acts and epistles are
Speaker 2: that's not it, Sorry about that, dissent and resists as
Speaker 2: if Paul is in error. How on God's green earth
Speaker 2: does sola scriptura hold up?
Speaker 3: What's interesting because you have no central authority, you have
Speaker 3: no pope, and yet several Baptists all believe the same things.
Speaker 3: That's pretty interesting. It's because the scriptures are final authority.
Speaker 3: We read the Scripture and we all come to the
Speaker 3: same conclusions. Because my sheep hear my voice. That's why
Speaker 3: we believe in salvation by.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So can you name somebody in the first fourteen
Speaker 1: hundred years that had your Baptist views?
Speaker 4: Not all of them?
Speaker 1: No, name one. I'm saying they didn't have all of
Speaker 1: my views, and you name one person that had you
Speaker 1: there's not one person that has all of my views.
Speaker 4: I don't believe that.
Speaker 1: So nobody who taught Baptist theology the first fourteen.
Speaker 4: I believe there's plenty of people could point to the
Speaker 4: taught salvation by.
Speaker 3: Faith who taught Baptist theology. I believe there's plenty that
Speaker 3: believed salvation.
Speaker 1: But did anybody did anybody toose Baptist theology the first
Speaker 1: fourteen hundred years probably, but I can't prove it. You
Speaker 1: can't name one. No, thank you.
Speaker 2: This one from to do appreciate your question.
Speaker 1: JB.
Speaker 2: Pelchier says acts and epistles are errant debate over.
Speaker 3: You can't name anybody in the first five hundred years
Speaker 3: doing icons either.
Speaker 1: Sure again whatever, sure aga in Michael Garden has a
Speaker 1: book on icons in the first, second and third century.
Speaker 1: I've been authority. I've been to the kils. No authority
Speaker 1: fallas and example fallacy. You just do what you do right.
Speaker 1: It's not a fallacy to give you a source for documentation.
Speaker 1: That's not a fallacy, idiot. I've been to the catacombs.
Speaker 1: You can go to the catacombs and see in the
Speaker 1: second third century altars and icons in the catacombs in Rome.
Speaker 3: I can build plenty of people, and that's not enough.
Speaker 3: The church fathers that don't look the similar views to me, look.
Speaker 1: For the catacombs. So now you're moving the goalpost. You
Speaker 1: said nobody. You said I had no sources. Have you
Speaker 1: been to the catacombs?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, do you think that there's icons and imagery and
Speaker 1: paintings and altars in the catacombs. I believe that in
Speaker 1: seven fifty four A d they do you think they were?
Speaker 1: The catacums? And I don't care what you think about
Speaker 1: I don't care those second estatsment applies to you. There's
Speaker 1: fifty four eight. You said somebody in the first, second, third,
Speaker 1: fourth century about icons, and I gave you an example,
Speaker 1: the catacombs in Rome. Have you been there? Do you
Speaker 1: think they exist? I'm sure there was some heretic that
Speaker 1: had icons, but anywhere there's plenty of them.
Speaker 4: Is there anybody from the first and.
Speaker 1: Exactly like you?
Speaker 4: And everything?
Speaker 1: Absolutely? Yes? Name Aarons? Why are you rolling your eyes?
Speaker 1: What about? Have you read Aaron ass? You just cheered
Speaker 1: Church five? Rolled your eyes? Have you read it?
Speaker 3: I don't believe anybody's read all of the writings. I
Speaker 3: didn't ask if you read I've read very select.
Speaker 1: Can you name one of his books? No? Then how
Speaker 1: do you know when you rolled your eyes that I
Speaker 1: don't have the same position? Again, it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: difficult argument to uh to really make it. Well, you
Speaker 1: asked me the question, why are you saying your own
Speaker 1: arguments are difficult?
Speaker 4: Idiot questions that are impossible?
Speaker 1: Well, then why do you ask me that if it's
Speaker 1: an impossible Ryan.
Speaker 2: Ryan Barnish says, question for Shelley, how do you know
Speaker 2: that Paul died if the Bible doesn't mention his death.
Speaker 3: It's pointed on the man wants to die. I think
Speaker 3: it's a silly question. I don't think anybody believees.
Speaker 2: Alive Mastered by Grace says for Ja what is the
Speaker 2: spiritual nature of scripture?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean all the church fathers described the inspiration
Speaker 1: that the Orthodox Church would adhere to as similar to
Speaker 1: the synergy of the two natures in Christ. So just
Speaker 1: as there's a divine nature synergized in the high set
Speaker 1: of union with the human nature, the human authors have
Speaker 1: a synergy with the Holy Spirit to write the text.
Speaker 1: So they have a human element and they have a
Speaker 1: divine element, and so both are included. And no, I
Speaker 1: don't believe that they're uninspired or I don't think they
Speaker 1: have errors. I said that they're not divine the sense
Speaker 1: of uncreated. There are created texts that men created in history.
Speaker 2: Obviously this one from do appreciate your question dominant for
Speaker 2: Christ who was claiming that dominic You gotta just wait.
Speaker 2: There are other people that have questions to relax. Said,
Speaker 2: for John, if the Bible is eternal, the Bible in
Speaker 2: it the people in it have no free will, including
Speaker 2: the evil they do, or God is eternally bound by
Speaker 2: human choice, which is it.
Speaker 1: I'm not a Calvinist.
Speaker 3: I believe in free will, so I don't know if
Speaker 3: I really could go down that line of thinking.
Speaker 4: I believe that we all have free will.
Speaker 2: So this one from him. You appreciate your question. Hayden
Speaker 2: Trent says, just peace up his Mormon level epistemology for
Speaker 2: knowing the canon. He just said, nobody is infallible, then
Speaker 2: how does he have certainty about the canon himself? Is
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit's internal guidance also fallible?
Speaker 3: No Holy spirits not fallible, So obviously those who are
Speaker 3: saved have the Holy Spirit abiding inside of them.
Speaker 2: Sheep we gotta give you, gotta give the end of
Speaker 2: the day answer.
Speaker 3: I have to believe what Christ said. Christ said that
Speaker 3: my sheep here my voice that has those who are saved.
Speaker 3: But again, give you the six books specifically we all
Speaker 3: agree on it's it's whether or.
Speaker 1: Not the aposive fallacy. It doesn't know whether or not.
Speaker 3: Jay's you know, cherry pick tradition and cherry pick stream
Speaker 3: of churches is, and there's no cherry picking. He just
Speaker 3: he just uses his private judgment. Erry he believes he's right.
Speaker 3: He's picked the infoul.
Speaker 1: I didn't argue that you said. You said that it's
Speaker 1: a purely subjective judgment that God bro. You said that
Speaker 1: because you're ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Is that if he wants more time to finish that
Speaker 2: it's a person asking him a question. I can't let
Speaker 2: you interrupt while he's trying to answer someone else's question. Jonathan,
Speaker 2: do you have something else you want to add or
Speaker 2: go ahead?
Speaker 1: Well, then all right, I was I was more upset
Speaker 1: about while he was over talking to me when I
Speaker 1: was talking. But because again he doesn't see how silly
Speaker 1: it is to say that the Apostles aired, but when
Speaker 1: he has his own assessment of what the canon is,
Speaker 1: he doesn't air, and he's infallible.
Speaker 4: This is I never said the postles aired, and what
Speaker 4: the books were, I said they made mistakes.
Speaker 1: They don't have there's no list of Apostles having. There's
Speaker 1: no Apostolic list of books.
Speaker 3: You admitted that Peter made a mistake. We both agreed there.
Speaker 3: That's not the same thing as theological and you just agreed.
Speaker 1: It's the same problem. If they didn't tell them what
Speaker 1: to pass down, how did they know? Well it just
Speaker 1: trust me, bro No, I didn't say just trust me,
Speaker 1: bro I have I started referencing things and you said,
Speaker 1: don't go to that who cures You started laughing at
Speaker 1: the church fathers when that's the only way you admit that,
Speaker 1: you go to the tradition of the fathers. So you
Speaker 1: undid your own argument.
Speaker 4: I don't go to the tradition of the fathers to
Speaker 4: decide was canon.
Speaker 1: You admitted that Matthew is known by Apostolic tradition. Yes,
Speaker 1: there are good traditions that have been passed down. It
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that every accept every tradition. Admitted that about
Speaker 1: the canon.
Speaker 4: I admitted that the sixty six books have been.
Speaker 1: Passed down Matthew. Yes, and I said that that's a
Speaker 1: good tradition. There's good traditions tradition. So you rely on
Speaker 1: tradition as well.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, we rely on Church and tradition, but we know
Speaker 3: what we put them in their place. They're subject to Christ.
Speaker 3: You try to elevate man in tradition. This is about Christ.
Speaker 3: This is about what tradition tells us. What goes in
Speaker 3: the Bible?
Speaker 1: Which tradition the one about Matthew. Yeah, again, we agree.
Speaker 1: You're relying on tradition for the Bible.
Speaker 4: You know, you just you just switched. You just switch.
Speaker 4: You're you're moving the Gold.
Speaker 1: I'm not switching anything because I.
Speaker 4: Can agree that the Matthew. I accept that tradition.
Speaker 1: You and I both disagree with about the Why do
Speaker 1: you reject Catholic traditions? No, it's talking about canonicity for
Speaker 1: the Book of Matthew.
Speaker 4: You may reject all kinds of different traditions.
Speaker 1: From what does that have to do with this? I'm
Speaker 1: talking about you relying on tradition for Matthew ethnicity.
Speaker 2: JB. Peltier says Jonathan, all right, Jonathan, it's a very
Speaker 2: serious question. Do you have a demon? Or is your
Speaker 2: head full of rocks? Okay, thank you for taking it.
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2: Fride Justin Henley says Gospels and Acts were written in
Speaker 2: sixty five eighty. What scripture was Paul teaching to the
Speaker 2: New Covenant Christians and advising others in the Epistles to teach.
Speaker 3: In the Book of Acts, it references the apostle teaching
Speaker 3: out of the Old Testament. So you know, obviously he
Speaker 3: had the Old Testament scriptures to teach and preach out of.
Speaker 4: He shows them. We have in the Book of Acts,
Speaker 4: chapter number eight, you have them teaching out of the.
Speaker 3: Book of Isaiah. So obviously they have the Old Testament
Speaker 3: scriptures to reference. They have Christ's words that he did
Speaker 3: teach to them, that he spoke to them, so they
Speaker 3: have those that they can rely upon. And obviously you
Speaker 3: have the nutim epistles. Once they're there, they have that
Speaker 3: scripture as well. The Bible teaches that the apostle Paul
Speaker 3: was actually visited and was given words of knowledge. Obviously,
Speaker 3: the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostle Paul and he
Speaker 3: was able to teach and preach scripture.
Speaker 1: If a Mormon comes and says that he has the
Speaker 1: internal testimony of the Holy Spirit telling him that the
Speaker 1: Book of Mormon is supposed to be part of the Bible,
Speaker 1: way that this person can objectively give a criteria by
Speaker 1: which he is correct, and a Mormon is wrong because
Speaker 1: his final quarter of appeal was his own subjective feelings.
Speaker 3: Now, the Book of Mormon doesn't go all the way
Speaker 3: back to the time of Christ. Addition, not internally consistent
Speaker 3: and the book.
Speaker 1: You admitted. You admitted your church doesn't go back. I
Speaker 1: didn't say that my church. I said the scriptures.
Speaker 3: Bro, you can't even you can't even pay scriptures, engage
Speaker 3: with whatsoever.
Speaker 1: You just wild Mormon. You are a Mormon. A Mormon.
Speaker 1: I believe the Scripture. So the sixty six books the
Speaker 1: Old Man didn't come from the the first century?
Speaker 4: Is that what you're claiming?
Speaker 1: Now? You cut down what came down from the first
Speaker 1: I cut down. I said that this you don't believe
Speaker 1: your own stupid KGV had the Deutero canon. You just said, Well,
Speaker 1: they didn't have it fully part of the canon. So
Speaker 1: did Jerome. So did a lot of people didn't accept
Speaker 1: the cherry picking Jerome as if we're supposed to follow Jerome.
Speaker 1: So what I'm not cherry picking. I'm saying there was
Speaker 1: people that by the same thing. Why Jerome.
Speaker 3: There's an example someone that translated into Latin, which became
Speaker 3: a very interational submitted to Roger translation.
Speaker 1: He was one of the most brilliant people that translated.
Speaker 1: He was and he was Catholic.
Speaker 2: We must go to the next one.
Speaker 1: Yes, he was Catholic. Thank you.
Speaker 2: So now you admit that you Catholic, guys, we just.
Speaker 3: Have Well, your confession says that you're Catholic. In the
Speaker 3: sixteen forty seven confession, you call yourself, Yes, I'm proudly
Speaker 3: a name war Bro Orthodox Catholic. You all called yourselves
Speaker 3: Catholic until the.
Speaker 2: Next one. And then what I'm gonna do is I'm
Speaker 2: going to ask if you guys can only do rebuttals
Speaker 2: like once in a great while. So sometimes I'm just
Speaker 2: saying we can't do it this one because we do
Speaker 2: have a ton of questions. Master by Gray says Jay,
Speaker 2: what did Paul use to correct Peter?
Speaker 1: There's nothing about referring to scripture that that necessitates or
Speaker 1: requires sola scriptura. In fact, in the councils, the scriptures
Speaker 1: are given premiacy, typically an argumentation, so I can believe
Speaker 1: in moremultiple authorities, and I can also believe within the
Speaker 1: scriptures there's a tear of authority. That does not equates
Speaker 1: as a non sequator to say that it's sola scriptura.
Speaker 4: He didn't answer the question, Yes I did.
Speaker 1: I said that appealing to scripture does not equate to
Speaker 1: sola scripture. That is your non sequator.
Speaker 2: This one coming on from do appreciate your question. Hayden
Speaker 2: Trent says, is the divine voice fallible or infallible? Either way,
Speaker 2: sola scriptura is false.
Speaker 3: The divine voice is obviously infallible. It's God, so obviously
Speaker 3: it would be in God speaks to you. I do
Speaker 3: not believe he audibly speaks to me at all. I
Speaker 3: believe you said the divine voice told you the canon.
Speaker 3: You said, the divine voice told you the canon.
Speaker 1: Only through the scripture. I don't think then, I doesn't
Speaker 1: tell you the canon.
Speaker 4: Did you even listen to the words that I said?
Speaker 1: It doesn't. Did I say that God doesn't speak to
Speaker 1: me audibly? Does the Bible tell you the canon? You
Speaker 1: don't even listen? Does the Bible tell you the canon?
Speaker 4: The Bible tells me that I'm gonna hear God's voice.
Speaker 1: The cannon, the canon? Which canon there is? Just like
Speaker 1: it says, there's So that's why you said the voice
Speaker 1: or that church or your which divine voice, tradition? Which
Speaker 1: divine voice? The scripture itself? The question is which scripture?
Speaker 1: Do you understand?
Speaker 4: There's an author to a book?
Speaker 1: Which divine voice is telling you? Which canon of scripture?
Speaker 1: The scripture is the divine, divine God. Where in the
Speaker 1: scriptures does it tell you the canon? This is really
Speaker 1: hard for you. Does the scripture to understand that there's
Speaker 1: an author to a book? Does the scripture tell you
Speaker 1: men of God spake as they're moved by the Holy Ghost?
Speaker 1: The scripture tell you the canon? No, I already answered,
Speaker 1: thank you. It doesn't tell you the canon Church, so
Speaker 1: it doesn't. You're appealing to you, so you don't have
Speaker 1: yourself again?
Speaker 2: Okay. This one from Marilyn says, you both would have
Speaker 2: followed Lucifer out of heaven because you need a master,
Speaker 2: not a lover and a friend. Okay. Josh Laurence says okay.
Speaker 2: Vobe says, question for Jonathan, without appealing to the masses
Speaker 2: or special pleading by what authority is my Chinese takeout menu?
Speaker 2: Which is divine? Not the word of God?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 3: Number one, it doesn't even claim to be the word
Speaker 3: of God. Number two, it doesn't have the same divine
Speaker 3: voice as the rest of scripture.
Speaker 1: Number three.
Speaker 3: It wasn't received by Christians. I mean, it doesn't fail.
Speaker 3: It doesn't pass any of the tests that the Christians
Speaker 3: that are received. Even if you can see that all
Speaker 3: Catholics all Orthodox and all Protestants include the Christians so
Speaker 3: called they all reject.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter that they all do it. It matters what
Speaker 1: basis they do it, Which is the Apostolic tradition? You
Speaker 1: have no, basically just said that it wasn't passed down
Speaker 1: from Christians. Christians didn't receive it. What Christians any who? Zero?
Speaker 1: What Christians accepted this Chinese menu? Zero? No. He's arguing
Speaker 1: that if the canon is fallible, then you can add
Speaker 1: new books to it. This theory in theory, Yes, the
Speaker 1: cannon is fallible, but I do believe believe.
Speaker 2: Mason Marcus says, stop, He's already dead. Rock on steady
Speaker 2: stead He says, question for pastor, Jesus observed the feast
Speaker 2: of dedication in tradition and deuterol canon, not the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Does this show?
Speaker 4: He affirmed, both, can you read that one more time?
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, no problem. They say Jesus observed the feast
Speaker 2: of dedication in tradition and Juduro canon, not the Protestant canon.
Speaker 2: Does this show?
Speaker 3: He affirmed, both, I believe that Jesus obviously followed the
Speaker 3: traditions that are taught in the Old Testament, and there
Speaker 3: was good traditions in those he did not observe the
Speaker 3: traditions of the elders, as they rebuked him for it.
Speaker 3: And I see there's zero evidence that he followed the
Speaker 3: apocrypha in any way. That's just not true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a whole article from all Protestant scholars
Speaker 1: affirming and admitting that the Deutero Canon, which the Apostles
Speaker 1: almost entirely used and cited in many cases the Deutero Canon.
Speaker 1: So I will put that into the chain. Would I
Speaker 1: would love Can we just do your number one point?
Speaker 3: Because I've read your article and your number one point
Speaker 3: is so ridiculous that if anybody can believe.
Speaker 1: That nobody cares what you think is ridiculous because you
Speaker 1: made yourself ridiculous tonight and and the article that shut up.
Speaker 1: In the article, I have the link right there. You
Speaker 1: can read all the Protestant scholars that make the sky
Speaker 1: look ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I'll give you the last word on that. Jonathan sends
Speaker 2: the questions.
Speaker 1: For you appeal to authority.
Speaker 3: If we look at the first example, he has Ecclesiasticus
Speaker 3: chapter number eleven as saying that it's quoting Second John one,
Speaker 3: verse ten and Ecclesiastics is eleven, Verse thirty one says
Speaker 3: for Eliath and wade, and turn it good and evil,
Speaker 3: and in things worthy praise will lay blame upon the
Speaker 3: second John one ten, if there come any under you,
Speaker 3: and bring not this doctor and receive him not in
Speaker 3: your house, neither bit of God speed. These aren't even
Speaker 3: on the same planet. They're not referencing each other whatsoever.
Speaker 3: And this is his number one proof. Now it's not
Speaker 3: that that's the horrific scholarship.
Speaker 1: This person is so stupid that I want to believe
Speaker 1: that they're quoting prom JB.
Speaker 2: Person here says Rabbinical Judaism didn't exists yet. Jonathan, say
Speaker 2: that again, Rabbinical Judaism didn't exist yet, Jonathan.
Speaker 4: Before the time of Christ. Yeah, I don't. I believe
Speaker 4: that the talmut is post Christ.
Speaker 2: Hayden Frent says, Divine voice told me Apocrypha is scripture. Obviously,
Speaker 2: go ahead, go ahead, says Pastor. Where do you find
Speaker 2: Pharisees in Old Testament? Same for j.
Speaker 4: Where I find them?
Speaker 3: That the Pharisees are just brought up multiple times in
Speaker 3: the Bible as people that had gone deviant from the
Speaker 3: Word of God, and they were teaching their traditions above
Speaker 3: the scripture, so you see that in the Catholic churches.
Speaker 1: So again he lied about my argument. My argument does
Speaker 1: not begin with Ecclesiasticus. In my first article about the
Speaker 1: canon of Scripture and refuting the Protestant view, I cite
Speaker 1: nothing but Protestant scholars all the way down. There's nothing
Speaker 1: relying upon Ecclesiasticus. And he thinks that because an argument
Speaker 1: is first, it's the strongest. This is a stupid person.
Speaker 1: Here's the article right there, you can read it. All
Speaker 1: it is is a Protestant scholars proving and admitting that
Speaker 1: the deuterocanonical texts are in the septuagen and that's what
Speaker 1: the apostles use. That's not an argument. That's not an
Speaker 1: appeal to authority to bring in authorities, you idiots.
Speaker 2: I'm going from line of Judah of fifty six. Question
Speaker 2: for John, how do you get an infallible New Testament
Speaker 2: canon with a fallible church slash consuls seems like a paradox.
Speaker 3: Well, of course, we got the Scripture of themselves from
Speaker 3: fallible man. The Bible teaches that holy men of God
Speaker 3: spake as they were moved by the Holy ghosts. None
Speaker 3: of them were perfect. They all admitted they had mistakes.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, we have to recognize
Speaker 3: that mankind is a sinner. Why would I believe if
Speaker 3: every single person's a sinner that if you added enough
Speaker 3: of them together, they would magically not be a center
Speaker 3: or now magically be infallible like some spiritual megatron.
Speaker 1: So he just admitted that the canon of Scripture itself
Speaker 1: is fallible a few minutes ago, right, So it's a
Speaker 1: it's a fallible collection of infallible books, as they like
Speaker 1: to say, and that undoes this position.
Speaker 4: I said that someone can get it wrong, not that
Speaker 4: the Canaan's in is fallible, says question.
Speaker 2: To Jay, do the oral traditions of the true Orthodox
Speaker 2: have validity? If no, how do you know that?
Speaker 1: I don't know what she's What group is he talking about?
Speaker 1: I mean, is he talking about just Orthodox in general
Speaker 1: or is he talking about a small schismatic group.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, as the Protestant asked the Protestant if he
Speaker 2: knows who Saint Polycarp is.
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 4: I'm not super familiar with him now, so.
Speaker 1: He doesn't know one of the most famous post Apostolic
Speaker 1: fathers has no idea. What the first second third century
Speaker 1: church father's teacher.
Speaker 2: Mister Lucky Man says, Okay, free Mason j has cooked
Speaker 2: third free Mason, all right, Just snake Foot says I
Speaker 2: f B equals sovereign citizen. They get pulled over, pull
Speaker 2: out the Constitution until the cop the text itself is
Speaker 2: the final authority, not the courts.
Speaker 4: Well, that is true that if a cop violates the Constitution,
Speaker 4: he'd be wrong.
Speaker 1: But you know whatever, that doesn't make the expositor of
Speaker 1: the constitution the final authority. The Supreme Court ends up
Speaker 1: being the final authority, which is old. This would disprose
Speaker 1: this whole position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because the Supreme courts never overruled themselves and made mistakes.
Speaker 4: Oh wait, they did, just like your church.
Speaker 1: It's an analogy, idiot. When did the Orthodox Church? I
Speaker 1: just applied your own analogy. When do we make a mistake?
Speaker 1: Seven fifty four AD he said icons are blasphemous seven
Speaker 1: eighty seven. That was an emperors It was an empress's council.
Speaker 1: That's not true.
Speaker 3: Oh so the Empress Irene, this lady comes in and says, hey, guys,
Speaker 3: you have to change your position or you're no longer
Speaker 3: a bishop and then they just all magically decided to
Speaker 3: switch positions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the same people in the same people who determine
Speaker 1: you canon, You idiot.
Speaker 4: You need Empress Irene to tell you what's right.
Speaker 1: She's the one that had the false council. You just
Speaker 1: got that wrong seven eighty seven.
Speaker 3: Impress Irene is the one that brought the icons in,
Speaker 3: and you're wrong about your fact there.
Speaker 1: Number two. The fact that she put pressure on these
Speaker 1: bishops to go ahead and change their position or they
Speaker 1: were going to lose their bishopric is just another fact.
Speaker 1: So of course with all that political excuse me, No,
Speaker 1: you're right, I just misstated. It's not Empress Irene. It's
Speaker 1: the Council of her era was a false council because
Speaker 1: it was rejecting the previous councils and their teachings. It's
Speaker 1: not false. I'm saying that the imperial power was behind
Speaker 1: the council. That is, it is the wrong I did
Speaker 1: a reference to the wrong person, but that was convoked
Speaker 1: by Constantina fifth, not Irene.
Speaker 2: This one from do you appreciate your question? Snake? What's
Speaker 2: we got that? Tyler Ross Taylor Ross ays question for
Speaker 2: Jonathan can you prove the perspecuity of scripture using sola
Speaker 2: scriptura without assuming that the scripture is perspicuous, because that
Speaker 2: would be circular logic.
Speaker 3: I've agreed that my position's a circular I've never denied that.
Speaker 3: I do believe that the scripture is self authenticating, and
Speaker 3: the scripture talks about being preserved. So if I believe
Speaker 3: that the scripture is preserved, then I would have to
Speaker 3: believe that there's a book out there that's been preserved.
Speaker 3: That's why I use the King Jame's Bible, because it's
Speaker 3: based on the Hebrew and the Greek, which has been preserved,
Speaker 3: and so therefore we have a preserved Bible in English today.
Speaker 1: How do you know that the rabbinic proto masoretic is right?
Speaker 3: Well, the King J's Bible does deviate very very seldom
Speaker 3: but a few times from the Mazretic, but they don't
Speaker 3: deviate from the consonental vowels of the Hebrew text.
Speaker 1: So you no what I'm saying that the masoretic listing
Speaker 1: of the canon. How do you know that's correct?
Speaker 4: Well, I just said that they don't always use the
Speaker 4: masoretic vowel pointings, and you.
Speaker 1: Said earlier in the debate that it's the Rabbinic canon
Speaker 1: that you use for the Old Testament. How do we
Speaker 1: know that?
Speaker 4: You're putting words in my mouth?
Speaker 1: Oh, you said that.
Speaker 3: I didn't say anything about They said the Hebrew canon.
Speaker 3: That's the Rabbinic that's whatever. You said that Hebrew had
Speaker 3: the canon.
Speaker 1: You said the Hebrew canon, and you thought that that
Speaker 1: was just the Hebrew canon. That's actually the Rabbinic canon.
Speaker 3: We used the Hebrew Continental vows period. Talking about that,
Speaker 3: you just not understanding textual criticism. You're not a textual
Speaker 3: credit at the point you did? You did you didn't
Speaker 3: want to go to there?
Speaker 1: You know not. Are you a textual critic?
Speaker 3: I'm just explaining to you. Are you did not graviate
Speaker 3: from the Hebrew consonant? Are you we deviate from the masoretic?
Speaker 1: Are you in.
Speaker 4: Textual seldom points?
Speaker 1: Are you a textual critic?
Speaker 4: I think everybody employs textual criticisms.
Speaker 1: Are you are you text Are you a textual critic?
Speaker 2: Everyone is, Oh my god, this one coming in from
Speaker 2: Do appreciate your question? Hayden frend says, without Church fathers,
Speaker 2: you wouldn't have scripture. God did not hand down the
Speaker 2: KGV in sixteen hundred.
Speaker 3: I already addressed that I believe Christians handed down the
Speaker 3: manuscripts that they were delivered from people.
Speaker 1: That he thinks are heretics. People that he thinks are heretics,
Speaker 1: is who gave him the Bible. He relies on his
Speaker 1: our tradition. And then he calls us heretics. But he's
Speaker 1: a heretic, describes and the Pharisees weren't even saved, and
Speaker 1: they were able to copy the Bible. And again additionally,
Speaker 1: a machine can copy this Bible. No person copied this,
Speaker 1: So no person, what are you talking about?
Speaker 4: This is a mean by a machine. A machine can
Speaker 4: copy a manuscript.
Speaker 1: That was talking about the first fourteen hundred years, you idiot,
Speaker 1: We're not talking about now exactly.
Speaker 3: Christians were copying the Bible. But it doesn't matter who
Speaker 3: were not saved and they copied the Old.
Speaker 1: Test Were those Christians in those centries? Yeah, but Jesus
Speaker 1: said that the Holy Spirit would not leave his church, right,
Speaker 1: I don't believe it has, okay in those centuries, the
Speaker 1: first fourteen hundred years, did it leave?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Okay? So where were the representative truth Theologians and Christians?
Speaker 1: According to you? Then I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't have this like unbroken genealogy that I'm okay.
Speaker 1: So the church can die? Did you did Jesus say
Speaker 1: Matthew eighteen that the church obviously didn't die. I'm still
Speaker 1: here Matthew sixteen eighteen. No, in those centuries. In Matthew
Speaker 1: sixteen sixteen eighteen, Jesus said the gates of Hill would
Speaker 1: not prevail against the Church, and he would be with
Speaker 1: the Church according to the end of the age through
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit. So where were the true believers in
Speaker 1: those first fourteen hundred years?
Speaker 3: I believe that Christians always existed period, regardless of name
Speaker 3: or some representative bodies or people. There's there's all kinds
Speaker 3: of groups that were outside the Catholic.
Speaker 1: Trae name some that you believe that weren't Novationists or
Speaker 1: all bageiner.
Speaker 4: I don't like point I don't like pointing to these
Speaker 4: hair because.
Speaker 1: You don't have any because you don't have anybody. Again,
Speaker 1: So you made your own sect? How did I make
Speaker 1: my own sect? You have no connection with the Church
Speaker 1: of history. You just made up a church. Did I
Speaker 1: make up Baptists? Now? The Baptists are made up? Idiot? Okay?
Speaker 1: How are they made up. Where were they in the
Speaker 1: first fourteen hundred years?
Speaker 3: Again, where within the first fourteen hundred years? Where was
Speaker 3: your your Worthodox tradition is changing constantly, that's.
Speaker 1: Tradition is changing.
Speaker 2: It's not you.
Speaker 1: You can't first out anybody in the second century that
Speaker 1: has some that they're kissing.
Speaker 4: And worshiping in here.
Speaker 2: Rachel Wilson says, Jonathan's argument is, quote you know it
Speaker 2: when you see it unquote. Then why don't any of
Speaker 2: the different dozens or hundreds of Protestant churches agree on
Speaker 2: what scripture says? They all disagree. So how is the
Speaker 2: canon of scripture or it's meaning self evident?
Speaker 3: Well, the Bible talks about divisions coming from heresy. Obviously,
Speaker 3: there's tons of heretics. There's horrific Protestant churches out there.
Speaker 3: The Orthodox, why did they split from Coptic? Why did
Speaker 3: the Catholic separate from the Orthodox? Obviously people have divisions.
Speaker 3: You know, why is there the Russian Orthodox? Why is
Speaker 3: there the Greek Orthodox?
Speaker 4: Those claim.
Speaker 3: Divisions obviously. You know he wants to sit here and
Speaker 3: claim he doesn't there's no such thing as this. We
Speaker 3: quote agree, it's just as soon as you don't agree
Speaker 3: with Jay's position. You're just kicked out of the cloud.
Speaker 3: This is total Scotsman.
Speaker 1: So he doesn't even know that the Orthodox are those
Speaker 1: are liturgical national churches. They're not disagreements.
Speaker 3: Were they having a liturgical service and people's houses in
Speaker 3: the first entry.
Speaker 1: Yes, they were with the icons. Yes, you can read
Speaker 1: the scholarship on that, like you don't even know you
Speaker 1: look up the Diary Europe Center. Your letergy on a
Speaker 1: Sunday morning, doesn't eve read from the Old Testament and
Speaker 1: the possible is preaching the Old Testament the Book of Acts.
Speaker 1: It's silly to think they're having this liturgical service, you
Speaker 1: understand product Greek scholars admit this. You're laughing with your
Speaker 1: smug So some random person said it. It must be true.
Speaker 1: Random scholars some like just be true, like Anglican literagist scholars.
Speaker 1: Brigham Young said it, So it must be true? Right?
Speaker 1: What this one I'm admitting I was that different saying
Speaker 1: something true Protestant academics.
Speaker 2: This one from do you appreciate It? Dissent and Resist
Speaker 2: says I'm not a Catholic, but I'm going to appeal
Speaker 2: to Jerome who is Catholic. Is there seriously, any reason
Speaker 2: why we should believe these people. This is utterly absurdity
Speaker 2: at this point, how many times is Pastor John going
Speaker 2: to refute himself? So Pastor John, and then they say
Speaker 2: that you're refuting yourself when you say, I'm not Catholic,
Speaker 2: but I'm going to appeal to Jerome who was Catholic.
Speaker 3: Okay, again, he asked me a question specifically, could I
Speaker 3: point to anybody that had my specific canon in times past?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 4: I wanted to as someone that had my particular.
Speaker 1: Lying, And I asked you, you're lying. I asked you
Speaker 1: the first three centuries.
Speaker 4: You did ask that question.
Speaker 3: You asked in other parts of the debate or other
Speaker 3: parts of the discussion, can you name no idudy that
Speaker 3: I said in the.
Speaker 1: First three centuries? Can you name somebody with your canon?
Speaker 3: Regardless, I'm answering the question of why I answered the
Speaker 3: question about Jerome.
Speaker 1: I'm not apportion doesn't answer the question I don't know
Speaker 1: my church father. So is there one of the first
Speaker 1: three centuries? There's plenty of people that appeal to name
Speaker 1: one scriptures that I appear. Just so if you don't know,
Speaker 1: how do you say that? Again, you can't name one.
Speaker 1: So how do you know.
Speaker 3: Obviously, Saint Athanasius is someone that appeals to the twenty
Speaker 3: seven book, and I appeal this is twenty seven books
Speaker 3: of the New Testament.
Speaker 1: I didn't ask you about that, actually, about the entire
Speaker 1: canon scripture. Athanasius the first to the Dudero cannon. So
Speaker 1: you just repeat yourself again again. Athasius does not refer
Speaker 1: to the Judo economics. He does as scripture. Yes he does,
Speaker 1: he does not, Yes he does? He again Festal letters,
Speaker 1: his facial letters we call up. In his Festal letters,
Speaker 1: he says that catech humans are instructed to study the
Speaker 1: dudoconomical texts. I'll pull up the same Athenacious quote because
Speaker 1: I think I haven't. I don't want your quote mine.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you what he says in the Festal letters.
Speaker 1: He says that it is not considered scripture. No, he
Speaker 1: says that catechumens are instructed to read the Dudero canon.
Speaker 1: In the Festal letters, he.
Speaker 4: Puts the apography as not in par with scripture.
Speaker 1: It's it's a very clear state. Why would he tell
Speaker 1: catecumans to read it? Do you know what a catecumen is?
Speaker 1: He could read it for historical value. No, that's what
Speaker 1: he said. You know what a catechumen is, It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mattercripture. That's the point. You know what argument
Speaker 1: is was what was scripture? And you know what.
Speaker 4: Has not scripture?
Speaker 1: And then you know and said that he appealed to, lying,
Speaker 1: do you know what a catechumen is? I don't give it.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't want to appeal to you don't
Speaker 1: know what he said? The argument, you're just it's the
Speaker 1: bi argument when he says the Catecumans are instructed to
Speaker 1: read the Duro Canon, you don't even know what a catechumen.
Speaker 4: Is, look Saint athanacious.
Speaker 1: So he doesn't merely says he doesn't know the apocrypha
Speaker 1: is not scripture.
Speaker 4: And Jade's lying.
Speaker 1: You're not even want to ignore that by going and
Speaker 1: I'm not going to allow him to go on a rabbit.
Speaker 1: He has a famous Festal layer liar. He says that
Speaker 1: the Catecumans are instructed to read the Duro Canon. You
Speaker 1: don't even know what a catechumen is. How are you
Speaker 1: competent to say? What's the case on this? Tell me what?
Speaker 1: I can't tell you? What I have to know what
Speaker 1: a catechumen is to yes you do, quote, yes you do.
Speaker 2: We have the next question, Fernando, because gentlemen, we've got
Speaker 2: to go to the next question. Fernando temic Cole says
Speaker 2: the Old Testament was for the most part established hundreds
Speaker 2: of years before the formation of the New Testament canon
Speaker 2: consols of which the Septuagint with the Deutero canon was
Speaker 2: used by first through third century Christians.
Speaker 1: Correct, correct, Yeah, this is what my article shows and
Speaker 1: refutes him.
Speaker 2: This one from Lombago, so this petitioned Jay to where
Speaker 2: pitt viper sunglasses every debate on modern day debate, gr and.
Speaker 1: That's why I wore my my panda shirt to show
Speaker 1: you that I'm nice.
Speaker 2: This one from g R says, all of Protestantism is
Speaker 2: just trust me bro. Okay. My guess is you don't
Speaker 2: agree with that, Jonathan. This one from Jerome Elaane I
Speaker 2: said trust the Bible, not me, says, Notice that we
Speaker 2: can't see any epistemology from Baptist yet. Right, there's more
Speaker 2: smack talk.
Speaker 1: Was trust me bro.
Speaker 2: In the Lord's work.
Speaker 1: Truly as theology. It's a book. Yeah, it's how we
Speaker 1: know that it's it's the right thing doesn't tell you
Speaker 1: the canon it is the canon.
Speaker 3: It doesn't tell you which ones the right is the canon.
Speaker 3: It doesn't have to tell me the question, how do
Speaker 3: we know? Not begging the question, it's God's word, I'm
Speaker 3: supposed to accept it.
Speaker 1: How do we know that it's not the Douo canon?
Speaker 3: How do we know it's not the Doudero cannon. Well, again,
Speaker 3: because it doesn't have the divine voice that's begging the question.
Speaker 3: Everybody else consistent the rest of the first thousand years.
Speaker 3: It's not been preserved in the Hebrew schismatic. It's not
Speaker 3: been received by all the Christians.
Speaker 1: You don't have a who are all the Christians? You
Speaker 1: can't name one the first four hundred years. I believe
Speaker 1: it's not received by all of them. You can't name
Speaker 1: one that believes your view. That doesn't count heretics. I'm
Speaker 1: going to read it.
Speaker 3: There's other books besides these, not indeed included in the cannon.
Speaker 3: And then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom
Speaker 3: of syrac And and he goes on to say there
Speaker 3: are He says that they're not in the canon. He
Speaker 3: goes on to shut off your lying. No you're lying.
Speaker 1: He says they are to be read by catechumens, and
Speaker 1: you don't know what that means.
Speaker 4: It's not scripture, it's not canon.
Speaker 1: It is part of the canon. It's the word deutero.
Speaker 1: Canon means second, contradicting himself, it's secondary canon. I'm telling
Speaker 1: you what it means because he tells the Catecumans to
Speaker 1: read it. And you don't know what a catechumen is.
Speaker 1: How are you gonna how are you gonna interpret it
Speaker 1: when you don't know where that it.
Speaker 2: Is this from.
Speaker 1: So he's not included in canon. Just kidding, it's canon.
Speaker 2: Bulpez says there is no Jewish canon quote unquote at
Speaker 2: the time of the Apostles, different groups of Jews had
Speaker 2: different canons. Also, Doctor James, please become orthodox, homie.
Speaker 1: So again.
Speaker 3: Jesus Christ, on the walk to Amais tells the two
Speaker 3: men that they are fools for not believing that all
Speaker 3: the prophets are spoken. How can he hold those men
Speaker 3: accountable for not having read everything that was scripture if
Speaker 3: they couldn't know what the scripture was.
Speaker 1: It's a non sack horse the nonsense.
Speaker 4: They know that what the Hebrew canon was at the
Speaker 4: time of Christ.
Speaker 1: The question is just false. It's a non secutor because
Speaker 1: it's not telling you the canon of scripture. He's talking
Speaker 1: about the Old Testament. By the way, if I look
Speaker 1: at Athanasius's list right here, do you believe Barreck is
Speaker 1: part of scripture? Again? Does he did he say that
Speaker 1: the apographer was not included in the cannon? Barrock is
Speaker 1: listed right here as part of the scripture in his
Speaker 1: thirty ninth Festal letter. Do you believe that? No, then
Speaker 1: you don't have Then Athanatius doesn't prove your position, you idiot.
Speaker 4: I just said that you lie that he said the
Speaker 4: apographer was included in the cannon.
Speaker 1: You said, it's the old time you said, he has
Speaker 1: your view. He includes Baruck. That disproves you.
Speaker 3: This probably appealed to Saints for my cannon, and I
Speaker 3: never said at anything.
Speaker 1: Is why I have the king? Can we share the
Speaker 1: one that says that names? We share it? Can we
Speaker 1: share the screen?
Speaker 2: You want to share your screen?
Speaker 1: I'm ready for it, yes, because I have the letter
Speaker 1: right here and he's totally full of it.
Speaker 2: But you have to share the screen. You have to
Speaker 2: press the book.
Speaker 1: I'll share my quote too, it's the same letter you idiot.
Speaker 1: You just read the only part of it.
Speaker 4: He wouldn't answer the question that he said, not answer.
Speaker 1: That. I'm showing you're full of it.
Speaker 4: Okay, show me where he didn't say that quote.
Speaker 1: It's a question of the full quote, not you're part
Speaker 1: of the text.
Speaker 4: I'll read the whole quote for you. These are not No,
Speaker 4: I'm not talking about that.
Speaker 1: And so if I have to shut my computer down
Speaker 1: because I don't have the permissions to share it. But
Speaker 1: he says, but appointed by the Fathers to be read,
Speaker 1: I'll pull it up on the screen so you can
Speaker 1: read it for I don't. I'm not read it. I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm not listen. You're lying about what the rest of
Speaker 1: the letter says. He says the Old Testament includes. This
Speaker 1: is paragraph four. He says, the Book of Barrack with Jeremiah.
Speaker 1: That's not your Old Testament. Correct.
Speaker 4: I don't believe in Barrick.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's not your Old Testament. The last paragraph,
Speaker 1: section seven says, the teachings of the Deuterocanonical text, or
Speaker 1: what are we called what we call the durocanon, are
Speaker 1: to be read and for the purpose of the Categhumans.
Speaker 4: What does that mean, I'm not appealing to Saint Athanasius form.
Speaker 1: Yes you did. You said it was the Protestant canon
Speaker 1: and it's not. You just admitted that. I said that.
Speaker 1: You said it was a Protestant canon, didn't you.
Speaker 4: I said that he appealed to the twenty seven books.
Speaker 1: Did he not know the Old Testament cannon? You know
Speaker 1: what we're talking about? And I got changing that he
Speaker 1: did said the Old Testament canon.
Speaker 3: Is baruk supposed to be Old Testament cannon according to
Speaker 3: Saint Athanasius.
Speaker 1: Yes, so why don't you accept it?
Speaker 2: We do?
Speaker 1: You idiot? Dude? Hear this so stupid? It is our
Speaker 1: Old Testine.
Speaker 2: You've got to go to the next question. This one problem.
Speaker 2: Ryan Finley says, question for Pastor Jonathan, do you even
Speaker 2: have the right translation of the Old Testament? Or does
Speaker 2: yours use the Massoretic text? Check Isaiah forty two to four.
Speaker 2: If it says quote unquote post Lands instead of Gentiles,
Speaker 2: your text is wrong.
Speaker 4: Again. I used I used the Hebrew for the Old
Speaker 4: Testament in the King James Bible.
Speaker 2: Rachel Wilson says, my homeschooled kids learned by about age
Speaker 2: seven that most people were illiterate prior to the invention
Speaker 2: of the printing press. Does Jonathan even know when that was?
Speaker 2: Literacy in three hundred eighty Roman Empire was about five
Speaker 2: to ten percent. By the way, this is so stupid.
Speaker 1: It has nothing to it's common knowledge. Yeah it does,
Speaker 1: because you said that nobody knows.
Speaker 3: You're talking about the second century, number one, so you know,
Speaker 3: not not the same, not the same comparison.
Speaker 1: You made the claim that they're literate.
Speaker 3: You said, in the second century, almost everybody couldn't read. Correct,
Speaker 3: That's what we were talking about. It's common talking about.
Speaker 3: They're talking about right before the printing press. This is
Speaker 3: separated about saying everybody before the printing press. You idiot, man,
Speaker 3: you're so funny, You're fundamentally.
Speaker 1: Why would why would Christ so as to read the
Speaker 1: Bible of no one could read? Are you this dumb? Seriously?
Speaker 1: Are you actually like challenged? Are you a little bit
Speaker 1: downs or what like?
Speaker 4: Are you like I'm glad that you have arguments and you.
Speaker 1: Proved you can make a thousand arguments found syndrome bias.
Speaker 2: Dude, odd Chaldean. So these are mostly just insults. Master
Speaker 2: by Gray's question for Jay does two quote que mean
Speaker 2: you don't have the answer to anything you ask of others.
Speaker 1: No, it means in the course of Q and A
Speaker 1: and cross examinations. If I asked a question and you
Speaker 1: ask me a question as a retort, then no, that's
Speaker 1: a fallacy. I answered his questions plenty of times about
Speaker 1: how we know tradition, how we know what the canon is,
Speaker 1: how we know that there's liturgy. I gave multiple examples.
Speaker 1: And by the way, again it's it's the affenacious quote
Speaker 1: is in the chat right here, and you can see
Speaker 1: in paragraph seven and in paragraph four he was wrong.
Speaker 3: It's funny because if Jay had been there, he could
Speaker 3: have corrected Jesus, since often when Jesus asked a question,
Speaker 3: he retorted with a question himself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, rhetorical question is not too quot Tony.
Speaker 2: The Baptist says, who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Jonathan?
Speaker 2: Because apparently it matters so much. I never said that,
Speaker 2: you said, Jay asked the Orthodox who wrote the Book
Speaker 2: of Hebrews? Because apparently it matters so much.
Speaker 1: We have believe that Paul wrote it. That's our tradition.
Speaker 2: The sentence resists, says, keep it on. Note that Jonathan
Speaker 2: appealed to tradition debate is over, period. Nothing more needs
Speaker 2: to be said from here on solo. Scripture is early
Speaker 2: nonsense and no has no basis in Christianity. Period.
Speaker 3: Again, I I said that there's nothing wrong with tradition
Speaker 3: as long as it lines up with scripture.
Speaker 4: That that doesn't end up question about.
Speaker 3: No one in the Protestant Reformation that said tradition doesn't
Speaker 3: matter at all.
Speaker 4: There's no no one hears that position. It's just like
Speaker 4: a straw man argument.
Speaker 1: No tradition for knowing Matthew's canon this city, No one
Speaker 1: denies that. You do you say that it's when did
Speaker 1: I say that Matthew's not the Gospel of Matthew lying
Speaker 1: math you admitted as tradition. Thus you rely on tradition
Speaker 1: to know the scriptures the canon to know that it's
Speaker 1: the Book of Matthew, but not that which is Again,
Speaker 1: the scripture is self authenticating. I don't need that are
Speaker 1: not That's not an argument. I could just say my
Speaker 1: or order tradition. I don't need to know the order
Speaker 1: of the books to know that it's the Word of
Speaker 1: It's not a question of the order, it's a question
Speaker 1: of inclusion. I could just say my position is self authenticating.
Speaker 1: If if you can do that, that's why it's a
Speaker 1: foul sait. Exactly, your position is you believe your church
Speaker 1: is infallible because your church is in found. I'm I
Speaker 1: want to know. That's not my argument. My argument was
Speaker 1: never just I know the Bible because my church infallible.
Speaker 1: I never meant that's a strong man. I said, we
Speaker 1: have tradition from the apostolic teaching of the Church fathers
Speaker 1: to know what the canon is. You don't have that.
Speaker 4: Where did you get that tradition?
Speaker 1: How do you know the Church fathers and the exactly
Speaker 1: to appeal to your church to know where you got
Speaker 1: that tradition.
Speaker 4: And so that's a circular logic.
Speaker 1: You appeal to your church to get your tradition, and
Speaker 1: so you're just saying, trust me, bro I picked the right.
Speaker 1: The difference is that you rely on my church to
Speaker 1: get your books. That's I never asked your church for that,
Speaker 1: and again stole a different Bible you got it from.
Speaker 1: How could I say that I appeal to your church
Speaker 1: because you rely on us for knowing that? Matthew wrote, Matthew,
Speaker 1: has you already admitted I didn't? Again, this is all Christians.
Speaker 1: You already admitted us. You already admitted that.
Speaker 4: I admitted that Christians passed down the tradition of Matthew.
Speaker 1: Yes, they were orthodox in those centuries. Everyone had that tradition.
Speaker 1: Show me the person that didn't know. They didn't show
Speaker 1: me the person that didn't. They didn't show me the
Speaker 1: person that didn't. You said everybody had the tradition that
Speaker 1: Matthew was part of the scriptures. Where is this You
Speaker 1: don't even.
Speaker 3: Know that Matthew is called the Book of Matthew. That
Speaker 3: was the whole argument. Just change the gold authorship. Dude,
Speaker 3: you're so stupid. I'm talking about that Matthew the Disciple
Speaker 3: wrote it. There's all kinds of Suppergratha that have apostles
Speaker 3: names the Gospel of Thomas.
Speaker 1: The question is that an apostle of Jesus wrote it.
Speaker 4: I believe that an apostle Jesus wrote it.
Speaker 1: Yes, how do you know it? Not whether you believe it.
Speaker 1: I just told you it's tradition, thank you. So you
Speaker 1: rely on tradition from our church and from our single
Speaker 1: that's a fallacy. That's an appeal to the massis.
Speaker 2: Dan Slob says, Jay, Why does the canon matter when
Speaker 2: talking about the authority of scripture, I can do solo
Speaker 2: scripturo without all of.
Speaker 1: Scripture, without what.
Speaker 2: Without all of scripture?
Speaker 4: I didn't understand that.
Speaker 1: How could you even do solo scripture? So he's saying
Speaker 1: that scripture a lot. Well, my argument was an opening
Speaker 1: statement that scripture itself points to the Word of God
Speaker 1: being oral and to traditions that are necessary in binding.
Speaker 1: So even if you say I'm just going to go
Speaker 1: with scripture, scripture yourself points out to other authorities.
Speaker 2: This one problem. Do you appreciate it? Dan Alien says
Speaker 2: God can't be in a loaf of bread and wine,
Speaker 2: but God is in the book on my dresser. This
Speaker 2: one from Tony the Baptist says their early church fathers say,
Speaker 2: Paul wrote Hebrews because trust me bro.
Speaker 1: No, the argument is that we do have apostolic oral tradition.
Speaker 1: I'm the one defending tradition. I'm not just saying trust me, bro,
Speaker 1: I'm going to say that when I go to Ieronas,
Speaker 1: when I go to Justin Marta, when I go to Clement,
Speaker 1: when I go to Cyprian, and those early church fathers,
Speaker 1: they are going to back up the positions and the
Speaker 1: tradition that we have in the Orthodox Church that he
Speaker 1: relies on, as he already admitted to even know that,
Speaker 1: Matthew wrote, Matthew.
Speaker 4: Again, how do we know Coptic isn't the right tradition?
Speaker 2: Easy airborne animal says, Does Jonathan believe that his understanding
Speaker 2: of the Bible superses those of the apostles? How does
Speaker 2: he know that it's God that is listening and answering
Speaker 2: his prayers and not the demon or the devil?
Speaker 3: My personal interpretation doesn't usurp anybody. The Word of God
Speaker 3: is the normative authority, it's the final authority. And many
Speaker 3: Christians come to the same conclusions. Not all, and I
Speaker 3: never said at all. There's obviously been schisms, there's obviously
Speaker 3: been heresies, there's obviously false traditions. He's he believes there's
Speaker 3: false traditions. He rejects many Catholic false traditions. Do you know,
Speaker 3: then you have to how does he does have to
Speaker 3: appeal the scripture? Because at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: the scripture.
Speaker 1: Scripture doesn't that's a non sequitor, doesn't mean sol scripture.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you don't even do you even
Speaker 1: know what normative authority is.
Speaker 4: It's how we know something's true or binding.
Speaker 1: That's not what normative authority is. So you don't even
Speaker 1: know in ethics what is normative. Your normative authority is
Speaker 1: the Orthodox turch ethics. Normative authority is the Scripture. Don't
Speaker 1: know what it means binding. You don't know what again means.
Speaker 3: My church can exercise normative authority through the scripture. Yours
Speaker 3: is tradition and the scripture ethics. What difference is the
Speaker 3: tradition not harmative word?
Speaker 1: In ethics? What is normativity?
Speaker 4: This is a silly argumentation.
Speaker 1: Are using the words. You don't even know what it is.
Speaker 2: What is it?
Speaker 4: It's binding authority on what's true?
Speaker 1: So it binds your conscience?
Speaker 4: What the scripture? Yes, it binds my conscience.
Speaker 1: Are there any normative authorities that can bind people's conscience
Speaker 1: to the sixty six books of the Scripture? The scripture itself,
Speaker 1: that's not a normative authority. It can't bind you. It's
Speaker 1: a book.
Speaker 3: It's it's got instructions. Bro These instructions are the binding authority.
Speaker 3: God's word, God Jesus the Ultimate didn't provide any living
Speaker 3: authorities that can determine what goes in the book.
Speaker 4: Look, Herod was rebuked for having his brother Philip's wife.
Speaker 1: How you only know how is Herod bound.
Speaker 2: To? One from the Airborne Animal. This one from Torren
Speaker 2: James says, Jay, will you ever stop being a big
Speaker 2: meany to prats?
Speaker 1: This one from I'm not being mean because I have
Speaker 1: a panda shirt on? How could I be mean if
Speaker 1: I have.
Speaker 2: This says your Bible is wrong. Mine is right because
Speaker 2: the sweet voice whispers in my ear and tells me
Speaker 2: while also saying trust me, Bro, that's rich.
Speaker 1: That's just a moon. He's a Mormon.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the sweet voice that told you to be Orthodox?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: From our borg says question for Pastor Jonathan, how would
Speaker 2: your position deal with the Gnostics during the second century?
Speaker 2: Is there a method?
Speaker 1: The scripture itself proves them to be false? They're not
Speaker 1: internally consistent with the scripture? Did they have a canon
Speaker 1: a scripture in the second century?
Speaker 4: I'm sure many Gnostics have their version origin and whoever
Speaker 4: you want.
Speaker 1: To they did. I'm not asking gnostics, I'm asking, obviously
Speaker 1: about the true Christians. Do they have a canon in
Speaker 1: the second century? I believe they did, because they how
Speaker 1: would we even get there? You believe that they did.
Speaker 1: Can you give an example of it? We have it?
Speaker 1: If they did the second know what to pass down,
Speaker 1: never gotten it. They had to know what your father
Speaker 1: in the second century that had the Protestant canon? You
Speaker 1: know that.
Speaker 3: You know why they had the un because they knew
Speaker 3: was the scripture and they passed it down. Aim a
Speaker 3: church was received and recognized.
Speaker 1: Name a representative person that had this canon.
Speaker 3: I don't need to represent exactly there is some Catholic
Speaker 3: church collar you play moldedly has my doctrine at this claim?
Speaker 1: No, dude, you claim that there were, So give us
Speaker 1: an example.
Speaker 4: Who I'm telling you that we have the scripture?
Speaker 1: Right? I don't care that you said that. So they
Speaker 1: obviously passed it down. Okay, who named somebody in the
Speaker 1: second What ifson was adopted and they never met their dad.
Speaker 1: You're not going to answer because you have a dad
Speaker 1: and they're like, well, how do you know the second
Speaker 1: You may never met my dad. Doesn't mean I can't
Speaker 1: know that I had a dad and in the same way,
Speaker 1: but you don't. I don't know which guys were the
Speaker 1: ones passing down. That does not prove that it didn't happen. No,
Speaker 1: it does because you don't know that that happens. We
Speaker 1: actually have this canon. The fact that so Mormons cannon
Speaker 1: Mormons have there.
Speaker 4: I think therefore, I am you just don't understand this axiom.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do with this argument? You're
Speaker 1: an idiot.
Speaker 4: The cannon exists. They obviously passed it down.
Speaker 1: You have no idea. How is the canon cannon your cannon?
Speaker 1: The cannon passed it down. This guy is so stupid
Speaker 1: he thinks the can and is a thing that pass doubt.
Speaker 2: Alien says for Jonathan, if the words of the Bible
Speaker 2: are God, then can I worship any passage or word
Speaker 2: in the Bible as God? Can I appreciate before any
Speaker 2: verse slash word like the quote unquote because it's in
Speaker 2: God's word and God?
Speaker 3: Again, I don't believe in like kneeling down before a
Speaker 3: Bible or anything like that.
Speaker 4: Don't don't hear me.
Speaker 1: It's the word, right. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I do think we should elevate and worship what the
Speaker 1: scriptures teach. Yeah, no, worship the sentences. The sentences. But
Speaker 1: there's show there's one Protestant there's a Bible somewhere and
Speaker 1: dow down to it. Is there a difference.
Speaker 4: Then show me one person's ever done that.
Speaker 1: Is this the word of God? Yes? Can I worship
Speaker 1: the sentences?
Speaker 4: How?
Speaker 1: How the Bible tells us to go into our closet
Speaker 1: and get on our knees and pray to God?
Speaker 4: And which is in heaven?
Speaker 1: You said the Bible is the thing that we could worship?
Speaker 1: Then right, No, we don't worship paper, we don't pay worship,
Speaker 1: We don't know the sennorship leather, leather not. But you
Speaker 1: know what, we sing the Word of God, and we
Speaker 1: we elevate that in our hearts and our minds, and
Speaker 1: you can get on your knees and you can pray
Speaker 1: Sator's worship the ses. You just mocked the Bible. You
Speaker 1: just hate the word out in Jesus, I'm mocking you
Speaker 1: because you're an idiot.
Speaker 2: You gotta go to the next one. Publia says, aren't
Speaker 2: there over three hundred versions of the Baptist Church? Why
Speaker 2: is your version correct?
Speaker 3: This knows it's three hundred versions. Is a total, over
Speaker 3: the top ridiculous statement. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter how many versions or flavors there are.
Speaker 3: There's versions and flavors of the Orthodox and Catholic and
Speaker 3: whatever is it? Oh, we have less versions, so therefore
Speaker 3: we're right, we have less schisms. I mean, the Muslims
Speaker 3: only have two big branches, sunny and she?
Speaker 1: Are they now right?
Speaker 4: Because they only have two?
Speaker 1: Can you can you give them multiple?
Speaker 2: We can't. Rebuttal, we've got to keep how many?
Speaker 1: How many?
Speaker 2: Lewis TURKEYO, says Jonathan, just portraying all the heresies tonight.
Speaker 2: I guess you disagree. JD says for John, what criteria
Speaker 2: do you use to determine when scripture is speaking and
Speaker 2: when it is not? To appeal to consistency and harmony
Speaker 2: to other scripture is fallacious?
Speaker 4: Again, I believe the sixty six books are all.
Speaker 2: Scripture, Gavin Lowther, says Jonathan. The answer is Carthage, true
Speaker 2: Low and the Eighth Ecumenical Council. That's where the canon
Speaker 2: is compiled.
Speaker 1: Good job, Ja, exactly.
Speaker 2: This one from serena Weeb Bible quote unquote is short
Speaker 2: for bibliography because it is the bibliography of Christ. It
Speaker 2: isn't Christ himself, it's about him.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Trent, says Pastor Jonathan. You are very mean this evening.
Speaker 4: Do you think your audience on the insults, but I
Speaker 4: would say he insulted me more.
Speaker 2: They might be trolling you, Jonathan think reflects positively on Christianity.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry I missed your question.
Speaker 2: Bobby C. Says for Jonathan, what language did the Scripture
Speaker 2: exist in throughout all eternity?
Speaker 4: That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 2: Talks in scripture, it's identical to the second person of
Speaker 2: the Trinity.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's a bonics. The eternal version of
Speaker 1: the scriptures is a bonics. That's blasphemous, stupid.
Speaker 2: Fifty six, says Jonathan. Do you believe when Satan talks
Speaker 2: in scripture it's identical to the second person of the Trinity.
Speaker 3: What's recorded in scripture is true, and the Bible records
Speaker 3: true statements about people that lied. So obviously the Bible
Speaker 3: contains people lying in the Bible. But no, it's it's
Speaker 3: it's a silly Satan.
Speaker 2: A chance to finish shape.
Speaker 3: Again, Obviously, there's human authors in the Bible. They're not divine.
Speaker 3: I believe all these words are from eternity past.
Speaker 1: Yes, so Satan was speaking in all eternity.
Speaker 3: No, he wasn't speaking physically, but he was captured what
Speaker 3: he would say, He has captured what he would say,
Speaker 3: it was captured. So you're so, you're so, you're believe
Speaker 3: in predestination.
Speaker 4: The Bible used the word amen.
Speaker 1: I thought you said you believe in free will.
Speaker 4: You can be predestined according to the fore knowledge of God.
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ. Before the.
Speaker 2: Tony, the Baptist says, is the Orthodox really calling Pastor
Speaker 2: Shelley a Jewish Muslim?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: This one from one true Iceman, says Jay out here
Speaker 2: calling people stupid lm ao. All of his detractors are
Speaker 2: going to clip it and say you shouldn't become Orthodox
Speaker 2: because he's being mean.
Speaker 1: Their father's call call heretics stupid all the time. I
Speaker 1: don't care.
Speaker 2: Helien says, good reason words for Jonathan. If the words
Speaker 2: of the Bible are God himself, then does the inclusion
Speaker 2: of the Old and New Testament texts in the Koran
Speaker 2: or Book of Mormon mean their books are maybe half
Speaker 2: God or a quarter God.
Speaker 4: Now they're they're not Scripture at all.
Speaker 2: This one from do appreciate Vics for Jonathan? Why should
Speaker 2: I trust in any of the Protestant Church's interpretation of
Speaker 2: scripture rather than that of the church fathers, some of
Speaker 2: which were disciples of the Apostles themselves.
Speaker 3: I don't think you should bigger trust than any man.
Speaker 3: The Bible says, you didn't even be trusting yourself. The
Speaker 3: Bible says to trust in the Lord of all thine heart,
Speaker 3: and lean not on the un understanding and all the
Speaker 3: ways acknowledge him. How could you trust in something other
Speaker 3: than yourself if you didn't actually have the scriptures of trust.
Speaker 1: You're trusting in your own subjective determination that you trust you.
Speaker 1: You know, I have multiple authorities and centuries behind me.
Speaker 1: You have your own subjective judgment.
Speaker 4: Why sixty six books to trust in.
Speaker 1: Which God told you in your inner burning Bosom Muslim
Speaker 1: argument is the truth canon?
Speaker 4: You just say trust me? Bro No, I didn't argue
Speaker 4: that at all.
Speaker 1: So that's a strong many tradition history.
Speaker 2: Bro Cyan says, I can line up ten Protestants and
Speaker 2: all ten will have their own interpretation of scripture, all
Speaker 2: believing theirs is guided by the Holy Spirit. It's nonsensical, yeah,
Speaker 2: because Orthodox never or disagree with each other. Dukie Monster
Speaker 2: says the fallacy. Dukie Monster has spoken. Protestants argue Jesus
Speaker 2: is the Bible when he never said he was. But
Speaker 2: the Eucharist is not Christ, even though he says it is.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jesus is obviously not turning in a cracker, is
Speaker 3: not turning into a physical person that people are eating.
Speaker 4: It's not cannibalism.
Speaker 2: This one from.
Speaker 1: But Jesus is a book.
Speaker 2: This one from says Pastor John. Are you playing I.
Speaker 1: Think Satan spoke from all eternity.
Speaker 2: You have to go to the next one, says Pastor John.
Speaker 2: Are you playing dumb about not being able to see
Speaker 2: the Muslim parallel in your position?
Speaker 1: Yes, he is.
Speaker 3: He's he's accusing me of being a Muslim in the
Speaker 3: in the context of understanding that Jesus Christ is the
Speaker 3: Word of God from eternity.
Speaker 4: Past So, no, in that particular context, it was a fallacy,
Speaker 4: and it was.
Speaker 1: It was. It's not the argument of.
Speaker 4: Attack true, just this line slander argument is the actual context.
Speaker 1: It's your argument about the text being eternal is identical
Speaker 1: to the Muslim argument about the crime being internal.
Speaker 4: You said you were bringing up Jesus too.
Speaker 2: Spire says, this is why no one takes Jayder seriously.
Speaker 2: Pure anger and ad Hominem is not a serious guy.
Speaker 2: This one from here him being mean thousand.
Speaker 1: That's why we had twenty thousand people convert to Orthodox
Speaker 1: the last Pasca.
Speaker 2: Henry Sanchez says, John, quote, Jay, give me one example. Unquote.
Speaker 2: Jay answers. Then John says, yeah, not that one exactly. Yes,
Speaker 2: as you disagree, Jonathan, I.
Speaker 4: Don't know exactly, give me example of that.
Speaker 2: Mayazaki says l m Ao. I think this is something
Speaker 2: the young people say. Paul isn't is fallible and Jonathan
Speaker 2: isn't w t F.
Speaker 4: I've never said I was infallible.
Speaker 1: You said that the canon is what God told you
Speaker 1: and your inner voice, and then you said it. Then
Speaker 1: you said, theoretically, yes you did. You said yes you did.
Speaker 1: What do you mean false? Now you're lying. You said
Speaker 1: the cannon was what the inner testimony was to you
Speaker 1: that God told you.
Speaker 4: I said that I can hear the Divine voice through
Speaker 4: the least Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: So now you're lying because that's what you said. So
Speaker 1: thank you for contradiction with audibly. I already said that
Speaker 1: he did speaking audible. I didn't say that about audible.
Speaker 1: It's the inner voice or inner testimony.
Speaker 4: It's the inner voice.
Speaker 1: You Sai