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