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