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