Speaker 1: So for my opening statement, the first thing I want
to do is me and Jay sort of have trouble
titling the thing because I don't think I feel like
we was missing each other. But it's about do we
have to keep Tora or not? So I don't know
if I don't know if Jay, as an Orthodox Christian,
believe they do keep Torah but Taurus. If anybody doesn't
know the first pub books of Moses, and it's the law.
Whenever the Bible says the law, it's referring to that
when it says the prophecy and the writings referring to
the rest of t knock. Now, secondly, as a tour
keeping Christian, I know that might come a shock. A
lot of people don't believe Christians can do. So I
already understand I have the unpopular position in this scenario.
I'm used to it. It's what I do, It's what
I'm known for. But somebody gotta do it. But with
that being said, I've probably been like one hundred of
these types of debates. People minds rarely change. People in
the chat are gonna support whoever they are to support beforehand.
Their mind's not going to change. So then the question
is why am I doing this. I'm really only doing
this for the remnant, for the people that have an
open mind, just want to hear somebody out and hope
I get the same respect which the flack. I will
with a moderator that I gave Jay Diary when he
was on my channel. I'll let him tell us about
orthodox Christianity, without argument, without interrupting, without anything, because you
have the people are fair shy. Now, Jay Dyer, who
I like, by the way, he's known for debating, typically
when it comes to Christian history. He's very good at
that pierpoint blank. But this debate for me is really
just one question, and it's a question that everybody knows
I'm going to ask, and I don't have to play
a secret hand because nobody can sufficiently answer the question.
And Jay knows my question because I asked him this
publicly at an event, And it's about what Jesus said
and the Sermon on the Mount, and it's Matthew chapter five,
verses seventeen to twenty one, with verse seventeen being one
of the most popular things that Jesus said that Christians
had got a contest. Now, when I asked him this
in person. Let me just read the part until Heaven
and Earth past, not one job or till or trying
to know why it's passed from the law until all's fulfilled.
And the verse clearly tells you that all beings can't
be fulfilled or accomplished until Heaven and Earth past. That's
clear in the text, no other way to interpret it.
And Jay's response, I always remember at the event was
Luke twenty four to forty four, and I could be wrong,
so Overhill correct me in his opening statement, but he
tried to say that in Luke twenty four to forty
four it implied that everything had already been fulfilled. Now
that is clearly impossible since Heaven and Earth hasn't passed yet,
which no Christian would say Heaven and Earth has passed
because two Peter wants you of Heaven and Earth pass
and then we know Heaven and Earth doesn't pass until
Revelation twenty one if that's a part of your cannon,
but it doesn't matter what you believe in. We know
Heaven and Earth hasn't passed. And the issue with this
question is is simple. If I'm not taking it out
of context, then Jesus said what he said. Now, let
me predict how typically these conversations go. You tell a
Christian Matthew File seventeen to twenty one. They attempt the
first say is out of context. We read the entire
context together, and everybody knows I pretty much notice Summer
on them out by heart. And they then can't say
it's out of context. And then they run to Paul.
They go to Paul uh and they try to use
Paul sub constantly to argue against Jesus because you couldn't
take you couldn't claim what I said about Jesus out
of context. That's a very dangerous thing to do inherently,
But it's so beautiful that the Bible warns us about
these types of people. In Second Peter three sixteen, the
Bible literally says, ignorant and unstable people will take Paul
out of context and use them to their own destruction.
And Peter actually calls these people unscrupulous people that are
attempting to make you lose your firm commitment. And it
tells you that, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard.
So whenever people jump straight to Paul to argue with
Jesus instead of confirming or denying what Jesus said. I
find it to be very very interesting with Jay. I'm
going to assume he's going to go the more historical route. Well,
who gave you the Bible? Uh, and and and and
the Church has a correct interpretation and you can't interpret
it without the Church. Now, if I'm not mistaken, right,
I know a bit about Christian history, admittedly not as
much about Jay Dyer. I'm more so I know scripture,
I know the Bible. But if I'm not mistaken, the
council the first council for the cannon, and people don't
know the different cannons happened over there. The councils was
the Council of Rome, if I'm not mistaken, which was
in the late three hundreds, which could be wrong. That's
based off memory, though late three hundreds. I find it
interesting because Iranius and Papers was the last name. Papers
are Heeropolis. They clearly affirmed the gospels. Matter of fact,
Iranius was pretty much argue with people that was trying
to say only one of the Gospels are accurate, and
he was already saying all four Gospels are accurate. And
that was hundreds of years earlier than any of these cannons.
So the scriptures are the scripture, and I fly like
that's a side argument. I fla, it's a side argument
because it has nothing to do with the point. If
you believe that your church chose this cannon, and you
need to believe in what it says. So again, my
main question is Jesus simmon on them ount Matthew five
seventeen to twenty one. And I hope this question will
get answered, and I'm about to say it to y'all
off memory. Hopefully I'll get it correct. I did not
come to abolish the law or the prophets. I came
to fulfilled, and Christians think fulfilled means abolished, even though
he clearly said otherwise. And then he says, for verily,
I say unto you, not one jot or tittle shalle
in no wives pass from the law until all is accomplished.
And then he says that if you nullify one of
the least of these commandments and teach others to do
the same thing, meaning teach others to nullify one of
the least of the commandments, then you will be called
least in the Kingdom of Heaven. This is Jesus' words,
and this is talking about the future. So you can't
say this change when Jesus died on the cross, because
Jesus is clearly giving you something that's going to happen
in the future. He said, but if you teach keeping
the commandments and teach others to do so, and keep
them yourself, then you will be called great in the
Kingdom of heaven. For verily I say unto you your
unless your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you challe in no case enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
And then for people that try to claim that he's
only referring to the Ten Commandments, that is impossible because
then right after this he goes on to do what
people call up a fence around the tour, or make
the law more strict. And in these things from the
that he takes from the law, almost half of them,
I'm not even in the ten Commandments to begin with.
So obviously he's referring to more than the Ten Commandments,
which he made clear when he said law or the prophets,
prophets or obviously after the law, this this consists. This
is what the to not consist of. So the context
is very clear, and I think this is an interesting thing.
So my one question is what did Jesus mean by that?
If I'm taking it out of context? My second question
is will you be called great or least in the
Kingdom of Heaven according to Jesus Christ? And I will
yield the rest of my time. I don't know how
long I just went.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you for coming. Let's let's get into my
opening statement before I address some of the points that
Bryson made there. One thing I would say is that
the argument that I gave wasn't in the live event
from Luke twenty four. It was Luke twenty one, which
locates the context of everything that Jesus is saying in
that chapter about the destruction of Jerusalem. Because Luke's written
for a gentile audience. It's referring to that time period
that group of people standing in front of him. Jesus
says they would see all of these things fulfilled. And
Luke is very important because his account of the all
of that discourse the destruction of Jerusalem is more specific
for a gentile audience explaining what's going on. So all
those statements about not fleeing Jerusalem on the Sabbath that
I saw Bryson was kind of referencing on Twitter the
other day. Those are actually statements about the seventy eighty
destruction of Jerusalem, a very famous event that fulfills many
of these Old Testament passages about as Jesus says, all
things written and the prophets will come upon this generation,
that being the generation that he was speaking to. This
is why he says in so many places that the
Kingdom of God is in your midst. The Kingdom of
God is here, it is now, and the Kingdom of
God is identified with the Church in Matthew sixteen. So
the Church is that kingdom. It's established at Christ's ministry.
It's also established at the feast of Pentecost. And that's
interesting because if you look at Pentecost, it's another thing
that proves this point. Because I feel strongly that if
I were to read Joel, particularly Joel two, about in
the last days, I will pour out my spirit upon
all flesh, and your sons and daughters will see visions, etc.
Bryson in his exegesis, I feel like he would ascribe
that to the end times, much like he would describe
Luke twenty one in Matthew twenty four to be explicitly
or solely about the last days, and yet Joel two
is cited as fulfilled in the event of Pentecost in
Acts too, again powerful proofs of what we call partial preterism,
not full preterism, which is the idea that everything mentioned
is fulfilled. Events like the bodily resurrection, events like the
destruction of Satan, death and Hell being thrown into the
Lake of Fire, etc. Are clearly those things have not
been fulfilled. However, the destruction of the Temple, which is
an immense redemptive historic event, is a fulfillment of multiple
Old Testament passes, particularly the warnings that Israel is given
in the Law in Deuteronomy and in Leviticus about having
the Covenant curses poured out upon them if they reject God.
Their final full rejection of God was in the rejection
of the person of God himself, the Logos, when he
became incarnate. As John says in John One, in the beginning.
In the beginning was the word, the war was with God.
The word was God. That means that Christ is the
second person of the God, had eternally begotten to the Father.
As John says later in that chapter, that even when
he was walking around with us, he was in the
bosom of the Father. And that's why every chapter in
the Book of John goes on to describe either references
to the deity of Christ or to the deity of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So the
Book of John is a powerful testament in the New
Testament to the full divinity of Christ. And I say
that because, and I know the debate is not about
the Trinity, but Bryson does not accept the Doctor in
the Trinity. And that matters because we're going to see
who gave the law. It's Jesus that gave the law
to Moses on Mount Sinai, and Jesus himself makes this
very clear in the Book of John. Before we get
to that, I do want to talk about Bryson's statement
about the history of things. If Bryson is going to
argue that his chief contention is Matthew five, the Beatitudes,
and so forth, this assumes, yes, that Matthew is an
authoritative text, But there's nothing in Matthew's Gospel that tells
us that Matthew, the disciple of Christ wrote the book,
and certainly apo authorship is important. It does matter. In fact,
it matters a big It matters a lot whether or
not he wrote that, because he's supposedly an eyewitness and
a person there in the presence of Christ seeing all
of this stuff. And so Bryson is correct to cite Papias.
Papius is the earliest witness that we have that it's
Matthew the disciple. That's a Patristic tradition, that's not something
in the text itself. And so Bryson, without realizing it,
is relying on the tradition and testimony of the Church fathers,
whom he does not accept. In fact, he even cited Aeronaus,
and I had to get Eronaus off the shelf because
in Aeronaus's Against Heresies, who was a bishop in the
Orthodox Church. By the way, if you look at book
three of Aeronaus's treatise, written in one eight a d.
Aeronaus goes into depth talking about the tradition of apostolic
succession in the churches and how it's necessary to look
to churches like the Bishopric of Rome as well as
others to see that apostolic tradition is inseparable from the Gospel,
the deposit of faith, and thus knowing the scriptures. So
Bryson just admitted that he has to referred to Orthodox
saints and church fathers in the first few centuries to
even know that Matthew is part of the Bible. So
you'll notice this book here that we call the Bible.
It's made up of many many it's a book of books.
But this didn't fall out of heaven into Bryson's lap.
It didn't come to him in a vacuum. It came
to him historically. It was transmitted and passed down much
the same way that the Jews transmitted and passed down
not just the written Torah, but also the oral Torah,
which Jesus refers to incites in many places. And so yes,
my first challenge is that Bryson can cite passages, but
I need to know why on his view, I'm supposed
to accept that he even has access to or a
basis to know the right canon if he's divorced it
from the Church who made the decision to put that together.
And he's correct that one of the early witnesses to
the canon that we accept is the African councils that
are confirmed by Rome, the Canons of Carthage, the African
Code as it's called, that eventually passed into for the
Orthodox Church what we call the Council of Trollo, and
it's appended together in the fifth and sixth Councils according
to the Seventh Council. So the Seventh Council basically says,
we accept Trello and all of those canonical lists, and
that is in this book of the chaft set. You
can see it right here where it lists uh oh,
none of the books that a Protestant accepts, or excive
me a list of the dudocanonical books the Protestants don't accept.
Why does that matter, Well, because it just simply shows
that Protestants of all forms, all shapes have the wrong canon.
They look to the Church of History to give them
accurate tradition when it comes to people like or Irenaeus
in regard to citing the Gospels. But why does Bryson
care what Ireneus says when Bryson doesn't accept anything else
Ierinea says as a bishop in the Orthodox Church, what
we might cite any other church father that disagrees. So
what if one or two church fathers cites this or
that gospel. That doesn't tell me which one I'm supposed
to follow, especially if there's conflicting canons, and there absolutely are.
We can give multiple lists of canons in the first
six centuries of the Church. Now let's get back to
the Bible itself. The Torah was given to Moses. But
in the Torah, disputes are assumed to be something that
will occur for Israel, and so Moses set down a
pattern of how disputes would be solved. This is the elders,
This is the high priests, etc. Who are put in
place to make to judge. Ultimately at the beginning, it's
Joshua and the seventy elders in numbers eleven Deuteronomy twenty one.
This is why we see, for example, the laying on
of hands of Joshua and number twenty seven. This laying
on a hand and transmission of authority in the Old
Testament is precisely what Jesus does as the founder of
the true spiritual Israel, the fulfillment of historic Israel in
appointing apostles, which he says in Luke ten sixteen, He
who hears you hears me. That means that succession of
authority that Christ has, that by the way, he gave
the law to Moses, because he's the one that spoke
to Moses in John five. Especially when we get through
John five, six, seven, eighty nine, when Jesus is disputing
with the Pharisees. His argument against them is that no
one saw the Father in the Old Testament. In Exodus,
when there was the manifestation of God at Mount Sinai,
that was not the Father. He says, it was me.
Moses wrote about me, Moses and Abraham believed in me.
So he is identifying himself with the manifestation in the
burning bush. If you go back to Exodus and compare
that with Exodus twenty three, you will notice that God says,
I will put my name, my divine name of Yahweh
in my Angel, the messenger, Angel of the Lord, that
speaks in the bush that goes before Israel. In the
book of Exodus, likewise, Moses goes up on the mountain,
and according to Paul and Second Corinthians, he eats a
meal with God. Now no one sees the Father. So
Moses wasn't eating a meal with the Father. He's eating
a meal with the Lord, the Angel of the Lord,
the second person of the Godhead, who is a Theophany
in the Old Testament in many, many, many passes, dozens
of passages. We can go back to Genesis the appearance
to Abraham Genesis eighteen. Abraham has a meal with God.
He's identified as like Yahweh the Lord. How do you
eat with God? Oh, it's just like Moses going up
on the mountain and eating the meal with God. Who God,
Jesus ergo, Jesus is the one giving the covenantal meal
there and the law there. This is the giving of
the Mosaic law. The point of this is that the law,
all of it, has a tilos, a purpose that Bryson
has missed. It is not can I talk the Gentiles
into believing in the ceremonial commands, in all six hundred
or whatever commands of the Torah, because we know that
that can even literally be kept because there is no temple.
In fact, Genesis forty nine predicted that when the Messiah comes,
the scepter will depart from Judah. That then comes Shiloh,
to whom the nations will look. That means one of
the signs of the coming of the Messiah is the
removal of the Davidic lineage. It ends. It's done why
Because he is the fulfillment of the david covenant, He's
also the fulfillment of the Noea covenant. The Noea covenant
is key because it shows us that righteousness is not
had by Mosaic law. It doesn't mean the mosaics law
is bad. It has a purpose, But Bryson has again
missed that purpose. Because Jesus is the living Torah, the
living Law, the New Moses. You see what about those commands?
Do we keep those commands? Yes, we do. In fact,
there are multiple references throughout the New Testament to all
kinds of ceremonial commands. Many of those ceremonial commands are
cited by Paul, for example, in Corinthians, when he says
not to muzzle an ox when he's treading out the grain.
How does Paul apply that? Paul specifically says, is it oxen?
God is concerned about ergo? No, He wrote that for
our benefit, he says, And the meaning of the passage,
the spiritual meaning of this ceremonial command, this penal sanctioned command.
In the book of Deuteronomy is that ministers, who are
symbolized by the oxen should have right to the field
that they work. They should be able to eat from
the work that they do. In other words, ministers can
make money. That's Paul's point. Multiple times we see these
principles applied in the New Testament of ceremonial passages that
are not done away with. They are still kept. It's
just that Bryson doesn't understand how they're kept. They're kept
in a different way than he thinks they're kept, and
in fact, his understanding of the Jewish interpretation itself is wrong.
The Mosaic Law was not given to the nations to
the gentiles. It was given to the people of Israel
for them to teach the nations about the true spiritual
pedagogy and meaning of the commands. Paul says in Corinthians
that uncircumcision and circumcision neither of these things matter. The
keeping of the law is what matters. So you see
later additions like circumcision and Mosaic law do not make
a person righteous, especially when the question is the inclusion
of the gentiles. Bryson may not be aware of this,
but his dispute. His question was already saw in Acts fifteen,
when they had the council describing and deciding how gentiles
could come into the Church, into the Covenant and be
made right with God. And the decision is that what
we ought not require anything more than was required of Noah.
If Noah could be made righteous before God before circumcision
and before the ceremonial laws given to Moses, then gentiles
can be in Christ on the basis of the pattern
of the Covenant given into Noah. It's a very simple argument.
And what did Jesus say, who hears you? Here's me.
The Holy Spirit is given in Acts two and Pentecosts.
That's the spirit that Jesus said in John sixteen he
would send that would guide the church into all truth.
And so unless he wants to himself pit Paul and
the Apostles against what Jesus said, then he needs to
understand holistic interpretation of the whole Bible. We don't just
read passages or chapters without understanding the context of the
entire Bible.
Speaker 3: Is that it one minute, the.
Speaker 2: Entire Bible gives us a holistic picture and message from
Genesis throughout the Covenants, all the way up to the
New Covenant. You can't understand the totality of the Bible
without each one of those successive covenants. Paul says in
Corinthians that every one of those promises, covenant promises, is
yay in Christ. Christ is the Telos of the law.
That's why we don't have a temple. That's why we
don't do animal sacrifices. And so if Bryson had read
Hebrews or Galatians, he would know that the things that
he thinks are still applicable are actually fulfilled. And I
would go even further and say that not only does
he not keep them, the Orthodox Church actually does still
keep many of these commands because we have temples. Hebrews
thirteen says that we have an altar in the churches,
that those that serve in the tabernac will have no
right to eat. That means there's still an altar. Peter
says that we are the Melchizedekian priesthood priests in Christ.
We still have a priesthood. Our churches are called temples.
We still have temples.
Speaker 1: If anybody goes back to my opening statement, he debated
precisely and exactly how I said he would. He never
answered the question about Matthew five, and he's not gonna
tell you why he didn't answer it, But it's because
he can't now. He went on to imply, for he
said little twenty one, and I recently watched the video.
When I asked you the question at the Lave vivenda,
you definitely said Louke twenty four. I could possibly be
mistaken with cold fact check that, but you kept talking
about things being fulfilled. Well, let's go back to Matthew
five seventeen through twenty one, which I knew was not
gonna get answered. This is why you made this thing
about the whole Bible and jump straight to Paul, because
this is what people typically do to try to use
Paul to argue with Jesus. Jesus said until heaven and
Earth passed, not one jot or tittle shalling. No Wi's
passed from the law until all is accomplished. So if
heaven and Earth has not passed, everything can't be accomplished.
That's very same temple, and this is read letters, this
is Jesus himself, and that is in context. So you
have an issue if you claim these things with a
field has heaven and earth past yet and then you
talked about these things about the temple of being destroyed,
so we can't keep a lot of the commandments. That's
absolutely correct. You are correct. This is the reason that
Orthodox Jews do not give animal sacrifices in the temple.
But your issue is the Tanak have already discussed this
in Hoseiah and second Samuel, rendering of bulls was replaced
with prayers of the lips because there was already a
time where the temple was destroyed, so God had already
put things in place for these things to be happened.
But that doesn't then nullify the commandments that are applicable
to people outside of obviously priests, because a lot of
the commandments do require a temple a lot, but a
good amount of them also don't. But that doesn't change
anything out that is changing anything at all. So when
you say, Jesus, the fulfillment has heaven and earth past, yet,
Jesus said that's required. So unless you can say that,
you still have an issue on your hand. And I'm
sure that's gonna get avoided again. And the reason I
brought up papiis and Irannius not because I care much
about their judgment. I'm so glad you brought it up
exactly how I thought you would, because you admitted that
Papiers was the earliest, and we know that because of Iranius,
because we don't have fragments of writing from Papists, and
you have one issue. He didn't say he the one
who said it was written by Matthew. Matter of fact,
what Papiers said is that the Book of Matthew was
originally written in Hebrew and people translated the best they could.
Now there's arguments over what he meant by that, because
we don't have the full excerpt of what he said.
But what that shows is people already thought it was Matthew.
They being thoughts Matthew. This is very early, as you
already said, So to claim that we need the church
to tell us what it is that would be interesting.
Since people was already reading the Gospels, they were already
doing it even before Papiists. Obviously that has to be
the case. I find that very very interesting. Well, you
talked about the trenity, that's not the debate. Don't really
care you brought up dude around me twenty eight and
twenty nine. I don't know if you knew that them
were the exact versions you were bringing up. But the
last verse of twenty nine said the hidden things belonged
to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to us
and our children forever that we fulfill all the words
of this Torah, or follow all the words of this Torah.
That's once again off memory. So I probably got a
word or too wrong. And you said Matthew twenty four
has already happened, But I think you switched it up
a little bit later and said that something's happened to
something didn't, which I'm glad you did, because Matthew twenty
four literally talks about Christ's return, So unless you're saying
Jesus has already came back, that also wouldn't make sense scripturally. Now,
as far as you taking Paul clearly out of context,
we talked about Galatians and need Abrott to Acts fifteen
and assume that I don't know these things, very sad
because as fifteen is about Paul helping the Gentiles turn
to Christ. And I like that you brought up Noah
because if you see the few laws that they had
to do themselves, you need to figure out what that
is in oral tradition that you got to talk about
so much. But what's beautiful about the Book of Acts
is all these questions that you have are already answered.
Paul himself later in Acts gave it animal sacrifice for
himself and others. And this is after Jesus died and
rose on the cross, and this is after Paul claim
to having set in Jesus. So now you have to
explain to me what you said is true while Paul
gave an animal sacrifice. Secondly, they were trying to kill
Paul because they people were saying that Paul was teaching
against the law. Paul then corrected them and said Paul
that corrected them and said he taught the law perfectly.
So the claims that y'all make about Paul are really
literally the claims that was made in Acts if you
read it, which I find, which I find hilarious. Need
brought up relations and a problem when people read Paul.
The reason why Peter has to tell you how long
I got.
Speaker 3: You have about two and a half minutes.
Speaker 1: Okay, hopefully that's enough. Just stop me. I'll just ended
no matter. But the reason why a lot of people
ignorantly take Paul out of context. I'm not saying that
to be disrespectful. That's the literal language Peter used. Is
because with Paul, you can't read one line here and
one line there. You have to read all five chapters
of Delatians. You have to read all chapters of Romans.
And what that means is Paul is literally the one
in Romans too that said, it is not the heroes
of the law that are righteous before God, but it
is the doers of the law that are justified. And
then he went on to tell you that the Gentiles
kept the law without having the law, but they kept
the requirements of the law, and he said it was
written on their hearts, which is a reference to Jeremiah
thirty one. And then you talk about Galatians. You need
to know what he means because if you read relations too,
he says, you have died to the law and now
you live to God. What does live to God mean?
Because Paul talks about not sinning, how can you sin
if there's no law? Seeing is transgression of the law
that law of Moses. And Paul explains this in Romans six.
If you need to understand what it means, I can
help you out Romans the way, I have nothing on
my screen anything. This is all off memory. By the way,
Roman six he literally tells you what he means. When
he says you're not under the law or you're dead
to the law, he's literally saying you don't sin anymore.
He explicitly states this in Roman six. The reason you
were not under the law because he said law of
the law is the knowledge of sin. So if you
died the same way Christ died, which is what Paul
says verbati in Roman six, then you are also resurrected
in the same way Jesus was resurrected. And what that
means is you no longer sin, your body parts are
no longer used for unrighteousness. Sin no longer rains in
your immortal body. Then he literally tells you that's what
not being under the law means anymore. That's why he
also said, like I said a few chapters earlier, that
gentiles kept the law without having it. So, uh, I
don't know if you understand what Paul is saying, but
I hope, I hope I helped the band.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the level of reading comprehension here and
understanding what has been argued, is it's sad. I feel
like it's just flying past people's heads here. So I
didn't say that everything was fulfilled in the temple being destroyed.
I said that heaven and earth passed away in the
sense of Christ's coming in judgment. That coming in judgment
is what he mentions in Luke twenty one in Matthew
twenty four to the generation standing in front of him,
that they would see these signs. And yeah, I'm very
familiar with the covenant curses in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and
those curses are applied in the Book of Revelation because
every one of those covenant curses rolls out upon the
city that's identified in the Book of Revelation as the
place where our Lord was crucified. So, in other words,
the texts that you're talking about are referring to actually
the destruction of Jerusalem. They're not talking about the end
of the world. But they have a fulfillment also mirrored
wise at the end of the world. And we know
this from the abomination of desolation, which is cited in
the Book of Daniel and in the Maccabees know that
abomination of desolation already happened. Did you know it already happened.
And so when Jesus is referring to it, he's saying
that the same thing that happened in the destruction of
the temple the first time and in the defilement of
the temple of the Maccabees, that it's going to happen
again in this day. This generation will not pass away
until all of these things are fulfilled. So you just
simply ignored and didn't listen to anything that I said.
And you don't comprehend partial predism because you confuse it
with full preadism. When the Book of Hebrews describes and earth,
the heavens, and earth being rolled up like a scroll
and passing away, the book is describing it from the
citations and texts like Isaiah, and it's saying that when
the temple is removed, that will be the fulfillment of
these things. You see, the whole Book of Hebrews is
about the passing away of the Mosaic administration in Israel.
And you don't even apparently know that in seventy a d.
That's what happened. It was destroyed, and that the Covenant
went to the Gentiles Jesus says in the Gospels that
this nation will lose the kingdom and it will go
to the Gentiles. That's the Gentile Church that occurred in
the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth centuries, which, by
the way, you don't have any connection to. Your sect
doesn't exist back then. You don't have any connection to
any of those people because your church isn't a church,
a made up thing, you see. But Jesus said that
the gates of Hell would not prevail against his kingdom.
His kingdom was set up in the apostles that he
established who he said, he that hears you hears me.
Who do you think ordained Irenaeus and Papias. Jesus's apostles
ordained these men, that succession comes from them. And you said, again,
I'm glad that you cited Irenaeus and Papias because they
cited the gospels. That wasn't my challenge to you. The
challenge was, why, on your view are we supposed to
care what pappious or irres people that you think are
heretics say. Why would a heretic tell us the Bible
and its books in your view? Please tell me that
I want to know when we get to the next section.
Because it's pick and choose, it's arbitrary. Paul says, the
definition of a heretic is a person that picks and chooses.
Your whole approach here is, I'm going to pick and
choose the sections of Jesus that I think are true
because it aligns with my presuppositions. And it's actually you
that sets Paul against Jesus. What I said harmonizes Paul
and Jesus. We can't take verses or sections or people
and pit them against one another. Paul did a sacrifice
because the temple was not destroyed yet, and that was
what we call a transition period that's done. When the
temple's done. No longer do Jews or Christians worship in
the temple because it's gone. That was the sign that's
fulfilled in Daniel nine. Daniel nine says, when the Messiah comes,
the temple's gone, eternal righteousness comes in. But in the
Testament we have references to sacrifices that continue on, like
the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is in every Orthodox church,
which has all of those things that you think you need,
temple sacrifice, incense, vestments, all of these things that you're
really into, which are in the Old Testament, they're in
the Orthodox Church. It is the continuity with those things.
You don't have any continuity with any of that. You're
relying again on our saints Papias, Aaron Aus for getting
the canon itself hit or you don't have any criteria
for why I'm supposed to accept Matthew. Your criteria was
because Papias cited it. So on what basis is one
church father citing something, tell me that that means it's
inspired in part of the Bible. The Bible was decided
as a canon centuries later. So all of your citations
of Paul or Revelation or any of this stuff is
simply your misunderstanding. It's totally out of a chord with
anything in the first years of the Church. So if
you don't have any representatives of your views in those
time periods, then you're what's called a sectarian. You're called
a heretic. And I know the Old Testament very well.
I gave you multiple verses about the deity of Christ
in the Old Testament, Jesus giving the Law to Moses.
You ignored all that because you don't want to go there.
You don't want to go into Theophanes because that shows
the purpose of the law. If there's a temple rebuilt,
are you going to go to Israel and offer animal sacrifices.
I know that you don't think it's necessary. I'm very
aware of what rabbinical Judaism did, and I know it
goes back to Ezra and when there wasn't a temple,
they said, we can offer it sacrifices a prayer. Okay,
So then you're admitting that it's not absolutely necessary for
salvation that we do animal sacrifices. But you're missing the
obvious point of entire books of the New Testament, which
is that you're an apostate and a heretic if you
go back to doing those things. That's explicitly what Hebrew says.
It says you've lost your salvation. Now in your case,
I'm not knocking you on a personal level, but you're
not at all even in the Church. You have no
connection to the branch, to the vine, to the sheep fold,
to the tree, to the Covenant. The Covenant is given
to the gentiles. Jesus says in that passage about the
destruction of Jerusalem. All these things will come upon this
generation the people standing in front of him. You will
see the temple raised to the ground. He says, that
happened in seventy eighty. That removes all of your stupid
proof texts about fleeing on the Sabbath and doing this
and that. The Temple is the Church. That's why Peter
says the Church is the temple. Jesus is the cornerstone.
The marriage Supper of the lamb that's described in Revelation
five and six is the divine liturgy. It's the Eucharist.
What does John c when he looks into heaven, vestiments, incense, priests.
That's the Orthodox Church on earth.
Speaker 1: Okay, I find a funny the two things you said. Now,
we talked about reading comprehension, and you said, I'm not
listening to you, which is funny because objectively speaking, you're
not listening to me because everything you have, the stuff
you claimed that, I thought, I've already explained it to you.
The Paul. I find it funny, and I did this
on purpose. It's funny. As poscriptures you brought up, I
explained it to you. Not only did you not debucket,
I did that as a show of faith in hopes
that you would answer my question about Matthew five, and
you still avoiding it as I predicted, what would happen?
Also about papers, I answer, you just didn't like it. No,
you never answered because I asked you it has Heaven
on earth past and oh matter of fact, I say,
heaven earth? Did you say he have nerve?
Speaker 2: Did I answer? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I do apologist for that clent. You said heaven and
nerve did past? Show me a scripture that said Heaven
and Earth has already passed? Show me any Bible scripture
that says that period.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the Book of Hebrews in Hebrews one, and
I'm saying that the Book of Hebrews is about the
removal of the earthly administration of the temple.
Speaker 1: Show me when the Bible says heaven and Earth has passed.
Speaker 2: I just said the Book of Hebrews, Hebrews one, talks
about having the earth passing away. The book is about
the removal of the temple.
Speaker 1: So I just want to be clear. Are you claiming
that Hebrews one said heaven and Earth has already passed away?
Speaker 2: It says the removal of the temple is the sign
of heaven and Earth passing away.
Speaker 1: I want, I want, I want the words heaven and
Earth passed, passing away because in the second how the Bible.
Speaker 2: Works, that's how you oh it is though, that's how
he think it works. Heretics think literal. Okay, So so
we only believe what's explicit in the Bible right.
Speaker 1: Right now, Ask the question. Your best answer is to
say you can't find it and that and say there's nothing.
Speaker 2: Hebrews one, it's about the removal of the heavenly administration
on the whole book is about that.
Speaker 1: So tell me the verse, and he was he was
one of a pretty short chapter. Tell me the verse
in Hebrews One that says heaven on Earth has already passed, that.
Speaker 2: Heaven and our earth will pass away. It'll be rolled
up like a scroll.
Speaker 1: Yes, Heaven it will pass away. Talk about talk about
the future.
Speaker 2: That's not well, he is just talking about the destruction
of the Temple, which is still in the future.
Speaker 1: Hey, so real quick though, accident rolled up is what is.
Speaker 2: Meant in the temple administration being destroyed. Because the temple
is heaven on earth. You understand, it's a symbol of
the whole universe. The three heavens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I find an interest. So you're not listening,
so you just boil past but across the examination, Yeah,
which is cool, But just just real gized, I want
to read this Bible verse real quate Second Peter ten.
But the day day of the Lord will come like
a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with
a roar, and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat,
and the earth and its works will be discovered. And
then it tells you again later in Second Peter, beautifully
written how it told you that heaven and earth you
need to be looking for a signe of a new
heaven and Earth. And then it tells you again the
revelation of twenty one that's talking about when Jesus coming back.
So there's no it will be fine if you just
admit there's no verse that says that that'd be great, though.
Speaker 2: No, I just think you have a misunderstanding based on
not having a canonical interpretation of the entirety of the message.
The entirety of the message is about the symbolism of
the temple being taken away and being destroyed. So you
understand that when Paul talks about the base elements. That's
what Hebrews is talking about, in the base elements of
the administration of the temple, circumcision, the show Bred, all
of those things are being taken away, rolled up, and
destroyed in seventy eighty. That's what the Book of Revelation
is about. Guess what. That's why Revelation says these things
are soon to come to pass. You know, John wrote
that to actual churches in Asia Minor. Do you understand
that like some of those churches are still with us today,
they still exist. They're Orthodox churches like at Ephesus. Right,
So John wrote a letter to a church in his
day in Ephesus. I believe he's writing before seventy eight,
and he says the things in the Book of Revelation
are soon to come to pass. And it describes a
destruction of a city where Jesus was crucified. That's Jerusalem,
that happened in seventy eight. So I want to go
back to in my cross examination the question of your
explanation as to why we're supposed to accept Matthew, because
everything you say relies on your argument here on Matthew,
you said Poppyius and Irenaeus. Why am I supposed to
care what papyist and arnea said? How does that tell
me it's inspired and authoritative?
Speaker 1: Uh? I'm I can answer that again like I answered
it before. You know the reason I brought it up.
The reason I brought up Papius and Eranius specifically is
because how you admit it. And I've already said this,
by the way, but you already concede at the point
that Papius is the earliest earliest person to even talk
about the God.
Speaker 2: Early tell us that it's authoritative and supposed to be
in the canon.
Speaker 1: That doesn't prove anything, just assuming earlier that talked about it,
and you're admitting that.
Speaker 2: It's supposed to be in the canon of scripture.
Speaker 1: You're admitting that pap has had that Matthew was originally
hit written in Hebrew and people interpreted the best they
could correct.
Speaker 2: You're just stating facts about the book. I want to
know how I'm supposed to know that that means it's
in the cannon and authorites.
Speaker 1: So as as I say previously when I brought it
up the other time. The reason why that's important is
not because he's claiming something is authoritative or not is
because if the way it is read, and of course
we have fragments, as I said before, we don't have
the full excerpts, but because of that we know that
it was already viewed that way before him.
Speaker 2: He's who You keep appealing to things that don't actually
tell me the criteria. How do you know that's the
right criteria?
Speaker 1: That's what the right criteria?
Speaker 3: That?
Speaker 2: What is the right criteria for canonicity, for authoritation, for authoritative.
Speaker 1: It's not about the candidate. This was before any canion,
I'm telling I'm telling you that. So so I'm telling
you that if Papeis was the earliest person to talk
about as.
Speaker 2: How do we know that early? Makes it that you
just keep assuming the argument it's circular.
Speaker 1: No, you're not listening. You're not listening, And I don't
know how you're.
Speaker 2: Not understanding what epistemic criteria is. I just want to
know how you know that, what's the basis for that?
You just keep saying what's earlier?
Speaker 1: Wait, well, no, I said that Papiers. You want you
said this that Papeis was the earliest person talking about
the gospels.
Speaker 2: Correct know to talk about Matthew being the disciple of Jesus.
Speaker 1: Who talked about the Gospels earlier than Papeous.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter because none of these things tell me
the criteria to know.
Speaker 1: What makes why not just admit? Why not just admit
what you've already admitted. I don't even I don't even
know what this concept has to.
Speaker 2: Be, because you're avoiding an obvious question.
Speaker 1: I want to know how I'm answering your question.
Speaker 2: You're relying on Orthodox Church. You're relying on Orthodox Church tradition.
Speaker 1: The reason I brought Papious up? You asked me a
question about why I brought him up. I'm about to
tell you again why I brought him up.
Speaker 2: You don't have to rehearse it. We all know what happened.
You're just avoiding the question. You know what?
Speaker 1: Never mind, I don't care about it no more. Now
I try to do it.
Speaker 2: It's okay filibustering to burn out the time and not
answering the question, why is that aative?
Speaker 1: Why is it? How can I burn out time? If
I purposely tell him to pause the time, it don't
start my time? How can I? How can I burn
it out?
Speaker 3: We'll go to Bryson's two minutes for for his cross
exam and then we'll go back to you.
Speaker 1: Sure, thank you, And I'm just going back to the
same thing. I reread Hebrews One to make sure I
wasn't missing nothing, even though like I know the book
of Hebrews, and I knew I wasn't literally not zilch,
absolute diss zero, and Hebrew one even implies that heaven
and earth has passed. So I will ask you again,
and all I want for you to admit the truth
so we can have a not as conversation on his dialogue.
Can you admit that nowhere in the Bible doesn't say
that heaven and earth has already passed? Can you at
least admit that sense? And I'm not saying you can't
believe that it has passed. I'm just saying, can you
admit that nothing in the scripture says heaven and earth
has already passed?
Speaker 2: Sorry, I was muted there. So Hebrews the One says
heaven and earth will pass away. Your work will not
pass away. They will perish, They will grow old like
a garment, like a cloak. You will roll them up.
So I just cited the passes that you said, wasn't there.
It is there, and I'm saying that it's about the
destruction of the temple. Now you have a different interpretation,
and I'm just simply pointing out your interpretation number one
doesn't make any sense because you pitted Paul against Jesus.
But you didn't tell me why I'm supposed to follow Matthew.
Why is Matthew authoritative?
Speaker 1: And yours my time? It's my time. You can you
can reask your question again like I react, my best
says heaven will pass. Like bro, this is not like
you've been unnecessarily difficult.
Speaker 2: You're not aware of basic positions and exegu.
Speaker 1: Let me repeat myself again.
Speaker 3: I said, who said it wasn't even there?
Speaker 2: I cited you the text.
Speaker 1: It's no listen what I say it is. You can
have your belief and your interpretation of something. I'm just asking,
can you admit that nothing in the scripture says that
heaven and nerve has already passed?
Speaker 2: You don't know anybody interprets the Bible. Only heretics do
that where they think that literally a phrase has to
be explicitly expelled out according.
Speaker 1: To your I'm not saying that has to be your
criteria I'm just asking you. Did You said it difficult,
That's what you said.
Speaker 2: Your argument is that it has to be explicitly there
where Where does the Bible.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you a question, where does the say it?
Anywhere it does say it.
Speaker 2: I just gave you the text.
Speaker 1: Hey, bro, you can hear.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm gonna put my question again to you
in a very simple way. You tell me on your view,
why is the Book of Matthew authoritative and inspired? In
your view? Given that the way that we know that,
the only way we know that is via tradition that
comes from the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you're having a preconceived notion right here,
meaning I've never said anything about that about tradition, So
I find that weird that you brought it up.
Speaker 2: But you appeal to papeists. Okay, you appeal to papeists, Okay.
Speaker 1: Just as I said Isa.
Speaker 3: Did.
Speaker 1: The reason the reason I brought up Papiis is because
it proves that even before Papiis people already viewed the
Book of Math.
Speaker 2: That doesn't prove anything. It just proves that it doesn't
prove that it's authoritative and inspired. That people believed it.
People believe false Gospels are a thartative and inspired Why
don't we follow that that?
Speaker 1: That's part of Irania's arguments that people were believing in
false gospels. So correct. I'm not disagreeing with that either.
We know.
Speaker 2: How do we know?
Speaker 1: I just said it.
Speaker 2: No, you didn't. You're not because the earliest you don't
have an answer.
Speaker 1: It's because the earliest that we can go back in
history that we can see what our own two eyes
churches were already using the God that that's the.
Speaker 2: Right Begging the question, how do we know that that's
the right criteria for canonicity because an old church did it?
Speaker 1: So no, we know because the God again that the
Gospels were already viewed as inspired by.
Speaker 2: Begging the question, you're asking the question of what the
gospels are and you're citing the gospels. That's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: What is a fallacy?
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 1: Are you all to the question question? Are you added in?
I'm feeling about you.
Speaker 2: You're citing gospels about how we know what the Gospels are?
That's a fallacy of.
Speaker 1: Circular That's not.
Speaker 3: Bryson, it's your time for your.
Speaker 2: Appeal to the gospels.
Speaker 1: Dude, No, I think you I think you listen to respond,
you don't actually listen to what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Don't answer. There is just bad argument, I understand.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, cool, So again now because I
got two minutes, right, so I'm trying to make it
quick because he could. He had no response from Matthew
Files has hit the twenty one outside of saying that
Heaven and Earth has already passed with no evidence of that,
which I find fairly Yeah, but that's that's not what
that's not what's not what you ask.
Speaker 2: But but you don't know anything about.
Speaker 3: It's just let's let Bryson ask his questions and then
it's your time. You can interrupt, you question. He's just
rehearsing revelations cross exactly.
Speaker 1: Is leading to a question? By the way, Revelation twenty
one tells you and have in a their for pass
and this involves Jesus coming back. So my next question
is that you believe Jesus already came back.
Speaker 2: Yes, he came in judgment upon the nation of Israel
and seventy eight, which is what he describes in Luke
twenty one. You understand Luke twenty one says that it
will happen to this generation that he will come in
judgment with the Roman nation to destroy the temple.
Speaker 1: Okay, So now again somewhere, So you believe that Christ
has already came like a beef in the night.
Speaker 2: This is if you had listened instead of trying to
talk so fast.
Speaker 1: I said that earlier, but I repeat it what you
said and wrote it all down, and I literally rehearse.
I literally quoted you. I literally quoted you saying, heaven
if it's already passed. I'm trying to and I'm trying
to get to the point of why you believe that.
You don't, so just be quiet for a quick second.
So I think our main issue is you believe that
Christ has already came back like a beef in the night,
and I already you don't even know. I think that
is all right, bro, I does don't even care to one.
Speaker 3: You have thirty seconds on the clock.
Speaker 1: I don't you can yield it, bro, I have I
don't even care you can yield it. This is not
this is not fruitful, okay.
Speaker 3: I I think the audience from the chat audience is
finding it fruitful. We can go to Jay, but I
think a lot of people in the audience are interested
in hearing your point of view and Jay's point of view,
I think they are finding it fruitful. Jay, you want
when I.
Speaker 2: Asked you why the Book of Matthew is supposed to
be a gospel that we accept and that it's authoritative,
you said, because there was early mentions of gospels. That's
begging the question, that's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So again, as I said, they got the earliest
evidence we have of these things, which a lot of
times do come from bishops, because Irannius was a bishop
and Papeist was also a bishop. This I don't unerstand.
I keep bring up tradition, like I talked against that
in this in this conversation, which I haven't because of that,
I know because of Papeists that Matthew was already viewed
so inspired you do prior to Papeists.
Speaker 2: So you appeal to the tradition, right, I just said that. Okay,
So the way that you know that that book is
in the Bible is our tradition. You don't find that
a problem for your view.
Speaker 1: No, because it was obviously it has inspired before papers.
Speaker 2: That's that's the It's not inspired by anybody in your
made up group. Your group didn't exist my group.
Speaker 1: What group you speaking of? Whatever your group is, I
don't know, So I mean how you're asking the question
if you don't know.
Speaker 2: Your sect, where was it in the first seven centuries?
Speaker 1: But what what would you call them? My sex? And
I say, I don't believe you.
Speaker 2: You don't name it, so you tell me?
Speaker 1: Okay, well, based on what I believe my sick is
the people that I don't know followed Jesus in the Bible.
Speaker 2: Representatives of those people in the first.
Speaker 1: I mean they were all there, matter of fact, the
people that you have.
Speaker 2: Any reference to prove that people in that time period.
Speaker 1: Yes, and you name Paul.
Speaker 2: Paul kept saying the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the Originals.
Speaker 2: Where's the church? Your group?
Speaker 1: If Paul keep Sabbath, sir, okay, so it died.
Speaker 2: Do you think the church died?
Speaker 1: Paul keep Sabbath. Yes, I just want to know. How
about Peter? How about James?
Speaker 2: This is me interrogetting your group. So there's not your
group and I gave you it doesn't exist for seven centuries.
Speaker 1: No, if you have to do your research, people that
will called because you did the research on your just
I just I've just as I want to know.
Speaker 2: You tell me where they are. Don't tell me to
do the research. In a debate, you're supposed to bring
the research.
Speaker 1: I just I just answered.
Speaker 3: That'll be time on this. Bryson. You have two minutes
for your cross examination of J.
Speaker 1: No, you can even give him my next two minutes.
But I already I already answered the question.
Speaker 2: I said anything you haven't answered, I did. I said,
you ain't answered, ship dude, So.
Speaker 1: Let me ask a question where you said, you said,
go look it up?
Speaker 2: Where is your group? Where's an example?
Speaker 1: This is why you need to talk lesson where is
the example? Okay, because if you actually quiet down for
a bit, if you let me finish my statement, you
would have heard me.
Speaker 2: Say you have that you go do some research. You said,
go do some research? Where was your group in those centuries?
So pure silence.
Speaker 1: I don't even why you asking the question, because you
don't even care if somebody answers it or not.
Speaker 2: You didn't answer. I don't let people not answer, and
just I did answer because you got pinned down. You
want to make it didn't.
Speaker 1: Answer clearly, I clearly answered your question. I just talked
so much about every time. That's not that's not the
only thing I said.
Speaker 2: Where was your group? And those it's a simple questions.
Speaker 1: Quit the fatter fact matter. I would use my I
would use part of my two minutes when hista min
is up Uh to answer his question for him without
him in the round.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, go ahead and google your group in those centuries.
Hurry up.
Speaker 1: I don't have to. I don't have google nded the
matter of fact I had I haven't had to look
up a book up the.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're an amazing genius at this. We all know
how smart you are, but you can't answer basic questions.
Speaker 3: It's you gave up your last two minutes. You said
jas thirty more seconds on this, then you two minutes
and you know you don't need to don't need to
give give up time or anything. I'm pausing it right now,
real quick. I know that things get contentious. That's totally fine.
These are serious things you guys are talking about. The
audience is getting a lot from it. So I do
think it's fruitful to engage as best as we can.
And Jay, you have twenty more seconds left on your
cross exam before we go back to Bryson.
Speaker 2: Where was anyone who believes your views in the second, third, fourth, sixth,
seventh centuries. They're always there from the Bible on word,
that's not a source. Dude, Are you serious? Do you
really think that that was an answer? You have no
evidence for it. You just said they're they have a
lot of evidence that I was, where's some size, where's
some sources, site something?
Speaker 1: I will when your time is up?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: That is that is time bracing. You have two minutes
on the clock.
Speaker 1: Okay, can you pause me at my one minute mark.
I'm actually use a minute of mind to answer his question. Okay,
all right, So, like I said, like I said before,
the reason I say, if you do your research, you
should have just stopped talking and let me finish what
I was saying at the point of saying that if
you do your research, they recall what people call nowadays
Jewish Christians have always existed from biblical time onward. Some
people view the mess Nazarenes, not the current Nazarenes, but
they have literally always existed. A sect of followers of
Jesus that kept the laws of Tora has literally always existed.
And the evidence is, like I said before, I mean
literally in the Bible, since every single apostle that existed
practice exactly like how I do, which I find quite funny.
But even afterwards, this is a sad matter of fact,
there's a lot of church Father's writings actually speaking against
these people, calling them Judaizers, And you know that as
a great history buff yourself. So that was my answer,
which means I did answer your question. If you don't
like the answer is none of none of my problem.
But I did answer it very clear for and this
was my answer. But you was talking too much. Now
my question to you, I really don't have anymore because
you don't really care about honor answers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so go after motives, Yeah, because that's all you
have left because you don't have an answer. Yeah, so
you you never quit, You didn't answer, You just said
they were there.
Speaker 3: Time to rebut Jay, yeah, price and go for these
two minutes you can you can re button and.
Speaker 2: About motives.
Speaker 3: That is true. But let's let we'll let we'll leave
the interruptions. The only person who can interrupt is a
person whose time it is. Yeah, we'll move forward that way.
Speaker 1: But I find I find it interest in how he's
now crying about motives when He's made at least ten
claims about me in the last time, but I don't
really care. But I'm about to go tit for tat.
That's not what the debate is supposed to be where
I've grown adults. Uh so again, I mean, the only
thing is he said Jesus already came in to beef
in the night, and I guess that can be his interpretation.
I can't tell him that can't be an interpretation. I
think that is like a gross interpretation. But the scriptures
have to say. And I would actually say he is
in the minority on that, just like I'm in the
minority amongst Christians of believing that we still have to
keep the law. I mean, I really don't have any
more questions, but I feel like that's the contention. I
fe like we figured out what the issue is. He
believed Jesus came like a beef in the night. I
don't believe that it has happened yet, So I mean,
I don't understand what else there will be to debate about.
That's the crutz of the issue right there.