M spaing and spending, the spending, the snow smoke, some things I love spend. All right, what's up? I want to make sure you can hear me, Chase? Can you hear me? Yep? Yep? Can you hear me? You're pretty low? All right? That's easy. Fix one second? All right? What about that? It's a little better? I guess here. No, it's easy to turn them. I'll turn them more. It sounds like you're not using your mic. Sounds like you're using your computer mic. But maybe my stuff's just turned down or something.
Try now, what about now? That's a little better? Go, I can go up a little more. No, that's good. Can y'all hear him? Ever? Get pretty good? All right? And Bryson is entering the room, so his audio is connecting. And then we'll let Chase take over. Now, whoever wants to kick it off can go first. I don't care if Bryson wants to go or if he wants me to go. We could do it either way, don't matter. Okay, how you doing, man? What's up? What's up? Chilling? Chilling? All right,
welcome over here to my channel to so tonight's debate. As you guys know is with Bryson Gray. The topic is who keeps the Torah. Bryson described himself as a Torah keeping Christian and his channel is linked. I'm sure you guys are familiar with Bryson. We did an interview not too long ago, so a few months ago. Um, but this is gonna be different. It's gonna be a formal, structured debate. It's gonna be timed. Chases our moderator, So, Chase, do you want to flip a coin
or something? Or how you want to do it? Sure, we could flip a coin unless you guys one do you guys wants to go flip a coin? All right? Cool? All right, I got a cap here. Heads will be Bryson, tails will be j Okay, it's heads. Bryson will go first. We'll do um fifteen minute opening statements and then um seven minute rebuttals, and then open floor for about an hour, and then a seven minute closing statements. Okay, hed, yourid went off. Whenever.
Whenever you want to start, I can, I can start the time. Also we already laugh. Okay, time. Um. So from 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 I was missing each other. Um. 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 Christians, believes they do keep Tora, but Tauras if anybody doesn't know.
It's the first pobook, so Moses, and it's the law. Whatever the Bible says, the law is referring to that when it says the prophecy in the writing is referring to the rest of to knock now. Secondly, as a tour keeping Christian, I know that might comes to 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 got to do it.
But with that being said, I've probably been in like a hundred of these types of debates. People minds rarely change. People in a 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. I just want to hear somebody out and hope I get the same respect which the flat I will with a moderator that I gave Jay Dyer 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 shot. Now, Jay Dyer, who I liked, by the way, he's known for debating typically when it comes to Christian history. He's very good at that
period, point blank. But this debate for me is really just one question, and there'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 them 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, but twenty one, with verse seventeen being one of the most popular things that Jesus said that Christians take out a contest. Now when I asked them this in person, let me just read the part until Heaven and nerth passed, not one jot or two trying to know
why has passed from the law until all is fulfilled. And the verse clearly tells you that all beings can't be fulfilled or accomplished until Heaven an Earth pass 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 over he'll correct me in his opening statement, but he tried to say that a little twenty four 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 second Peter wants who have Heaven and Earth passed? 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 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 Files every teen to twenty one. They attempt to first say it's out of context. We read the entire context together and everybody knows I pretty much know what the sermon 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, and they try to use Paul's up constantly to argue against Jesus because you couldn't take you couldn't claim what I said about Jesuss 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. And second Peter three sixteen, the Bible literally says ignorant and unstable people will take Paul out of
contexts 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 jumped straight to Paul to argue with Jesus instead of confirming or denying what Jesus said, I find to be very very interesting with Jay. I'm going to assume he's gonna go the more historical route. Well, who gave you
the Bible? H and and and and and the Church has the 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 counsel, the first council for the cannon, and people don't know the different cannons happened over different 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. To find it interesting because Iranius and papers last name PAPIs the Herropolis.
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 were accurate. He was already saying all four Gospels is accurate. And that was hundreds of years earlier than any of these cannons. So the scriptures are the scripture, And I felt that's a side argument. I felt it's a side argument because it has nothing to do at 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 Sermon on the Mount Matthew five saving teen 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 feel and Christians think fulfill means abolished, even though he clearly said otherwise.
And then he says, for verily, I say, until you not one jotge or tittle, shall let no wise passed 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 keep them yourself, you will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For verily I say unto you, your unless your righteousness succeeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, 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 it put a fence around the toil, 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 are obviously after the law. 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, and he went about eight minutes, so you're you're crushing it. Yeah, right under eight minutes to Jay whatever you want, you got fifteen minutes on the clock. All right, 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 in 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 has 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 two. Again powerful proofs of what we call partial pretorism, not full pretorism, 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. It's that 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 of what in the beginning was the Word, the word 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, of 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 don't I know the debate is not about the Trinity. But Bryson does not accept the doctor of the Trinity. And that matters because we're going to see who gave the laws, 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 content and 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, as 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 Pappius. Papius is the earliest witness that we have that it's Matthew the Disciple. That's an 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 Arenais, and I had to get Ariannais off the shelf because
in Arenais is against Herresees who was a bishop in the Orthodox Church. By the way, if you look at book three of Arnais's treatise, written in one eighty AD, Arnais goes into depth talking about the tradition of apostolic succession in the churches and how it's necessary to look to churches like the Bishop brig 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 have 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 insights 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 cannon 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 Trullo, and it's appended together in the fifth and sixth Councils according to the Seventh Council. So the Seventh Council basically says we accept Troullo 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, oh, none of the books that a Protestant accepts, or it just give me a list of the duocanonical books that 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 Pappius or Iranaus in regard to citing
the Gospels. But why does Bryson care what Ernais says? When Bryson doesn't accept anything else. Ernais 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 priest, etc. Who are put in place to make to judge. Ultimately at the beginning, it's Joshua in the seventy elders in numbers eleven Deuteronomy twenty one. This is why we see, for example, the laying on of hands of
Joshua in numbers twenty seven. This laying on of 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, here's 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. And
John five. Especially when we get through seven, eight and 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 three and compare that with Exodus twenty three, you will notice that God says, I will put my name, my divine name of godway 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, yahweigh 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 what 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 telos, a purpose that Bryson has missed. It is not can I talk the Gentiles into believing in the ceremonial commands and 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. 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 dividic lineage. It ends. It's done why because he is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, He's also the fulfillment of the Noea covenant. The Noah covenant is key because it shows us that righteousness is not had by Mosaic law. It doesn't mean the Mosaic's 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 muscle 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 solved in Acts fifteen, when they had the counsel 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 un to Noah. It's a very simple argument. And what did Jesus say? Here he who hears you, here's me. The Holy Spirit is given an acts to and Pentecost. 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, Pitt, 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. Although we have 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 yea 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 at the Tibernack will have no right to eat. That means they're still an altar. Peter says that we are the Melkizadekian priesthood priests in Christ, we still have
a priesthood. Orthodox churches are called temples we still have temples. Awesome. And before we get into rebuttals, Jay, could you pin Bryson? I think because I was the last to speak that the other camera was on me, so we do apologize for that, and then UM, I don't know how it works on zoom, but if we could pin Bryson and then um, once we get that done, just let me know and uh, and then we can get I saw him on the screen. I saw him,
so he should be fine, perfect Bryson. Whenever you want to start. You have seven minutes for rebuttal only seven minutes, oh man, I wish I could use some of the time. I yield it, but it's okay. Don't be seven minutes. If anybody goes back to my open est statement, he debated precisely and exactly how I said, he will he never answered the question about Matthew five, and he's not gonna tell you why he didn't
answer it, but because he can't now. He went on to imply, he said a little twenty one, and I recently watched the video of when I asked the question at the live event, and you definitely said Luke twenty four. I could possibly be mistaken. We could fact check that, but you kept talk about things being fulfilled. Well, let's go back to Matthew five seventeen to twenty one, which I knew was not going to get answered.
This is why you made this thing about the whole bibble 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 job or tittle shout letting no wise passed from the law until all is accomplished. So if heaven and nerve has not passed, everything can't be accomplished. That's very simple. And this is red letters, this is Jesus himself,
and that is in context. So you have an issue if you claim these things were fin field has heaven and earth passion, and then you talked about these things about the Temple of destroy 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 to not have already discussed this in Joseiah and Second Samuel, rendering the bulls is replaced with prayers of the lips, because there was already a time where the temple was destroying, so God had already pit 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, but a lot but a good amount of them also don't. But that doesn't change anything out that's changed anything at all. So when you say, Jesus, the fulfillment has heaven and nerve passed, 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 Papius and Uranius, it's 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 pay this was the earliest, and we know that because of a Rainius, because we don't have fragments of writings from
papists. And you have one issue. He didn't say he the one who said it was written by Matthew. A matter of fact, what papists 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've been dogs Matthews. 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 papists. Obviously that has to be the case. So I find that very very interesting. Well, you talk about the twenty that's not the debate, don't really care.
You brought up, dude around to me twenty eight and twenty nine. I don't know if you knew them was the exact versions you were bringing up. But the last vest of twenty nine said the hidden things belonged to the Lord, but 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 Tora. That's once again off memory. So I probably got a word or two
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 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 taken Paul clearly out of context. You talked about Galatians and he bought to ask fifteen and assumed
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's like to talk about so much. But what was beautiful about the Book of Acts, because all
these questions that you have are already answered. Paul himself later in Acts gave it animal sacrifice for himself and other and this is after Jesus died of rolls on the cross, and this is after Paul came to have accepted 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 paula corrected him and said he taught the law perfectly. So the claims that ch'all make about Paul or are really literally the claims that was made in Acts if you read it, which I find, which I find hilarious. And then you brought up Relatians and a problem with 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 thought 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 to be disrespectful. That's the literal language Peter used, is because with Paul, you can't read one line here in one line there. You have to read all five chapters of Galatians. You have to read all chapters of Romans. And what that means is Paul is literally the one in Romans two that said, it is not the heroes of the law that are righteous before God, but
it is the doors 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 the latitions. You need to know what he means, because if you read Thelations two, 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? Sins transgression of the law that law of Moses. And Paul explains this in Roman six. If you need to understand what it means, I can help you out Romans. And by the way, I have nothing on my scranything. This is all of 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 are not under the law, because he said the law is the knowledge of sin. So if you die the same way Christ died, which is what Paul says verbating him 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 reigns 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 the Gentiles kept the law without having it. So I don't know if you understand what Paul is saying, But I hope, I hope, I hope the bad oh Jay, you have seven minutes on the clock. Yeah, I mean the level of reading comprehension here and understanding what has been argued is it's it's sad, it's 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 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 text 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. Did you know that 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
pretorism because you confuse it with full pretorism. When the Book of Hebrews describes the heaven 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 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, fifty 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 is in 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, here's me. Who do you think ordained Irenaeus and Papius. Jesus's apostles ordained these men, that succession comes from them. And you said, again, I'm glad that you cited Irenaeus
and Papius 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 Papius or Ironaus, people that you think are heretics, say. Why would a heretic tell us the Bible and its books? In your view? 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
as 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 truth 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 New Testament we have references to sacrifices that continue on, like the sacrifice of the eucharists, which is in every Orthodox Church, which has all of those things that you think you need, temple sacrifice, incense, in estaments, 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 are an as for getting the cannon itself, 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 accord with anything in the first thousand 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 gonna 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 sheepfold, 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 raise to the ground. He says, that happen 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 in sense, priests, that's the Orthodox Church on Earth. All right, we're going to move into We're going to move into one hour of open floor debates
get contentious, obviously, I expect some interruption. That's totally fine. I'm gonna stay out of it. If things get to the point where you guys are talking over each other though, and we can't fully hear either of you, I will step in back and forth. Is totally fine. You guys have one hour um for open dialogue, and I do want to remind people there will be a thirty minute Q and a UM at the end of the debate, so you guys can super chat YEP, super chat in UM.
The stream labs link is in the description as well as in the chat. There you go, guys, so it's not it's not two minutes each and they're doing it okay, real quick, do you want me to how do you guys want to do? Those two minutes each? Then I thought it was total total open flo. Okay, cool? Well then Bryson, go ahead, okay, um. I find it funny. I wrote a two
things we said. Now you talked about reading comprehension. You said, I'm not listening to you, which is funny because objectively speaking, you're not listening to me because everything you have stuff you claim 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, Paul scriptures you brought up. I explained it to you. Not only did you not debunk it. 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 happened? Also answer, I answer, you just didn't like it. No, you never answered because I asked you it has heaven in her past? And oh a matter of fact, I said, heaven nern Did you you said heaven ned? Did? Yeah? I do apologize for that. You said heaven NERD. Did pass show me a scripture that said heaven nerf 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 nerth has passed. I just said the Book of Hebrews, Hebrews one talks about heaven and 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 nerth 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 ner pa has passing away, because in second the Bible works, that's how you think it is, though, it's that's how think it works ever literal okay, So so we only believe what's explicit in the Bible right right now. The question your best answers to say, you can't find it, and that and nothing I said in Hebrews one, it's about the removal of the heavenly
administration. The whole book is about that. So tell me the verse, and he was he was pretty short chapter. Tell me the verse and Hebrews one that says heaven and Earth has already pased. Which verse says that heaven and earth will pass away. It'll be rolled up like a scroll. Yes, heaven will pass away. Its talk about so talk about the future. No, it's not that's not well. Hebrews was talking about the destruction of
the temple, which is still in the future. He so real quick though, Heaven and being 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 it interest you're not so. No, that's a two minute back and forth, though I didn't talk for too minutes at all. Yeah, that's why I'm confused, Like, how do you guys want to do that? Snap?
Oh, snap hold on that. Okay, nice about you all up? Uh, but yeah, which is cool, But just just realise you want to read this bottle verse second Peter ten. But the day day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away for 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 nerf you
need to be looking for a signe of a new heaven and earth. And then it tells you again a revelation of twenty one that's talking about when Jesus coming back. So there's no it will be fine. You just that there's no verse that says and 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's circumcision, the show bread, all of those things are being taken away, rolled up, and destroyed in seventy eight D. 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 in Ephesus. Right, So John wrote a letter to a church in his day in Ephesus. I believe he's writing before seventy eight D. 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 D. 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 in your argument here on Matthew, you said Poppius and Ernais, why am I supposed to care what Papius and Erna said? How does that tell me it's inspired and an authoritative? Uh? I can answer that again like I answered it before.
You know the reason I brought it up. The reason I brought up papist and Ranius specifically, is because how you admitted and I've already said this, by the way, but you already can see at the point that Papias is the earliest um earliest person to even talk about the Goths. That is early tell us that this authoritative and supposed to be in the cannon. That
doesn't prove anything. You're just assuming he's earlier that talked about it, and you're amitting that Papias does that tell me it's supposed to be in the Canada Scripture. You're admitting that Papias said that Matthew was originally 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 authoritati. So as as I said previously when I brought it up the other time, the reason why that's important is not because he's claiming something's authoritative or not. It's because if the way 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 we 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 candidicity, for authoritation, for authoritative RELI This is not about the candidate. This was before any candida. Well, I'm telling I'm telling you that. So so I'm telling you that if Papists was the earliest person to talk about 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 say 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, well, it's earlier. Wait, well, no, I said that papist You you said this, that Papists was the earliest person talking about the gospels. Correct, No, to talk about Matthew being the disciple of Jesus who talks about the Gospels earlier than Papists. It doesn't matter because none of
these things tell me the criteria to know what makes So why not? Why not? Why not just admit what you've already admitted. I don't even I don't even know why this conversation has to be this because you're avoiding an obvious question. I want to know how you'm answering your question. You're not You're relying on Orthodox Church. You're relying on Orthodox Church tradition. Uh. Why
I've answered that probably three times. That's not answer again? No my answer, and I will actually go DV. You can like hold my two minutes across themination. I'll try to answer this question one more time for him. Um, the reason I brought Papius up. You asked me a question about why I brought him up, and 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. We can go to my two minutes fill of busting to burn out the time and not answering the question how can I burn out time? If I purposely tell him to pause of 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, Jack, Sure, thank you, And I'm just going back to the
same thing. I reread Hebrews One, just make sure I wasn't missing nothing, even though, like I know the book of Hebrews and I knew I wasn't literally nut zilch absolute this zero and Hebrew wants 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 notest conversation and honest 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, Senson. I'm not saying you 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 One says heaven and earth will pass away. Your work will not pass away. They will perish, You will grow, They will grow old like a garment, like a cloak. You will roll them up. So I just cited the passages 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 as Matthew authoritative in your it's my time, it's my time. You can you can react your question again. It's like I react my um bass
as heaven will pass. Like, bro, this is not like you've been unnecessarily difficult there you're not aware of basic positions and exitgen what Let me repeat myself again. I say, when somebody said it wasn't even there, I cited you the text. It's no one. I say. Listen what I say it is. You can have your belief in your interpretation or something. I'm just asking, can you admit that nothing in the scripture says that heaven
and Earth has already passed? You just know any interprets the Bible, only heretics do that where they think that literally a phrase has to be explicitly expelled out according to you. I'm not saying that has to be your criteria. I'm just asking do you ask you did? You said? 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 anywhere? It does say it. I just gave you the text. Hey, bro,
you can, you can? You can minutes, but real quick, when when it's someone's two minutes on their time to do the cross examination, they can. Let's make it so that they can interrupt and they can redirect. Um. And then it'll flip flop to where when the next person's time is going, they can interrupt and they can redirect. I'm just forgetting who's going. That's that's all good. UM, It's it's you going now, Jay, two minutes on the clock. 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, it's 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 bad about tradition, So I find that weird that you brought it up. But you appealed to papias. Okay, you appealed to papists, Okay,
just as I said, did not reason. The reason I brought up papists is because it proves that even before papists people already viewed the Book of mass That doesn't prove anything. It just proves that it doesn't prove that it's authordative and inspired. That people believe that people believe false gospels are athwardative and inspired. Why don't we follow that's that that's part of iranious arguments that people are believing in false gospel, So correct, I'm not disagreed with that. How
do we know? I just said it, so you didn't. You're not because the earliest is you don't have an answer. It's because the earliest that we can go back in history that we can ask to see what are all to ask? Churches were already using that, 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 guy again at 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 the fallacy again? Question? Question? Are you added in? I feel about you are citing gospels? About how we know what the gospels are? That's a fallacy of circulations. Now, Bryson, it's your time for your gospels. Dude. No, I think you I think you listened to responding you don't actually listen to what you say is just bad argument. It's not
understand all right, all right? Cool? So um 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 him the twenty one outside of saying that heaven and never has already passed with no evidence of that, which I find fairly Um. 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. I mean, just let's let Bryson ask his questions and then it's your time.
You can interrupt. Okay, so he rehearsing relations Yeah, cross example is leading to a question. By the way, Revelation twenty one tells you when heaven an air will 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 d, which is what
he describes in Luke twenty one. You understand Luke twenty one says that it will happen to this narration, 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 view if you had listeners instead of trying to talk so fast. I said that earlier, but I repeat what you said and wrote it all down, and
I literally, 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. So all just be quie 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'm what you don't even I think that is all right. Bro, I honestly don't even care to one about
Kyloe. You have thirty seconds on the clock. I don't go. You can yet it, bro, I have I don't even care you can you can yet it. This is not this is not fruitful, okay. Um. I think the audience from the chat audience is finding it fruitful. We can go to Jay, um, but I think a lot of people in the audience are interested in hearing your point of view, Um, and Jay's point of view. I think they are finding it fruitful. Um. Jay, when whatever you want. You have 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, if you think at the earliest evidence we have of these things, which a lot of times do come from bishops, because Iranius was a bishop and Papists was also a bishop. Um, this is I don't understand. I keep bring up tdition like I talked against that in this in this conversation, which I haven't
because of that I know because of Papists that Matthew was already viewed. So you inspired papists, So you appealed 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 out a problem for your view, No, because it was obviously viewed as inspired before papists. That's that's it's not viewed as inspired by anybody in your made up group. Your group didn't exist. Where where was your group in any of this time?
My group? Yeah? What group you speaking of? Whatever your group is, I don't know. So I mean, how are you asking the question if you don't know what you're sacked? Where was it in the first seven centuries? What would you call them? A sex? And I say, I don't what I believe you you don't name it. So you're telling me, okay, well, based on what I believe, my sick is the people that I don't know, um follow Jesus in the Bible representatives of those
people in the first I mean, they were all there. And the fact is the people that you have any reference to prove that people in that time? Yes, yes, and your name is Paul. Paul kept saying, because the second, third, fourth, sixth seven, I'm talking about the Originals. Where is the church? You're a group? Paul keeps having there. Okay, so it died. Do you think the church died that Paul keeps having yes, something, I just want to know. How about Peter?
How about James? I mean, this is me and Terro getting your group. So there's not your group gave you. It doesn't exist for seven centuries. No, if you have to do your research. People that were called John asking you because you did the research on your just I just I just, I just I want to know you tell me where. 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 Jano. You can even give him my next two minutes. But I already I already answered the question. I said you haven't answered I did. I said, you ain't answered shit, 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 done. You said, go do some research. You said, go do some research? Where was your group in those centuries? So pure silence, right, I don't even want you ask the question, cause you don't even care if somebody answers it or not. You didn't answer. I don't let people not answer. And just ram I did answer. You Just you trying to deflect because you got pinned down. You want to make it and I didn't answer. Clearly, I clearly
answered your question. I heard talk so much to God every time. That's not That's not the only thing I said. Where is your group and those It's a simple question, quick, matter of fact matter. If I will use my I will use part of my two minutes when his hi minute is up, uh to answer his question for him without him in a round. Go ahead, go ahead and google your group in those centuries. Hurry up. I don't have to. I don't have to google in the things a
matter of fact, I had I haven't. I haven't had to look up at the book, up the cell. Yeah, you're an amazing genius at this. We all know how smart you are, but you can't answer basic questions because in my two minutes, it's you gave up your last two minutes. You said, Jays, thirty more seconds on this two minutes, and you know you don't need it, 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. Um, 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 that believes your views in the second, third, fourth, or sixth seventh centuries? They were always there from the Bible loan
word. That's not a source that dude, Are you serious? Do you really think that that was an answer to you have no evidence for it. You just said there. They have a lot of evidence that where's some size, where's some sources site something? I will when your time is up, all right? That is that is time. M Bryson. You have two minutes on the clock. Okay, can you pause me at my one minute Martin, I'm I'm actually used a minute of mine to answer his question.
Um, okay, all right. So like I said, like I said before, the reason say, if you do your research, you should have just stopped talking and let me finish what I was saying. My point of saying that if you do your research, they recalled what people call Nowaday's Jewish prisons have always existed from Biblical time onward. Some people view them ass Nazarenes,
not the current Nazarenes, but they have literally always existed. A sect of followers of Jesus that kept the laws of tour 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 a matter of fact, there's a lot of church file that's writings actually speaking against these
people, calling them Judaeazers. 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, it's none of none of my problem. But I did answer it very clear for and this wasn't my answer, but you was talking too much. Now from my question to you, I really don't have anymore because you don't really um care about honest answers. Uh 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 you didn't answer. You just said they were there trying to rebut jay um yeah, race and go for these two minutes you can, you can rebut in and not about motives. That that is true. But let's let well, let we'll leave the interruptions. The only person who can interrupt is a person who's time it is. Yeah, we'll move forward that way. But I find I find an answeresting 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 if I'm about to go tit for tat. That's not what a debate is supposed to be where I grown adults. Uh so again, I mean, the only thing is he said Jesus already came into beef them 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 of what the scriptures
have to say. And I would actually say he is in the minority on that, just like I'm in the minority amost Christians of um of believing that, uh, we still have to keep the law. Um. I really don't have any more question. I've like that's the contention. I like we figured out what the issue is. He believes Jesus came like a beef in the night. I don't believe that has happened yet, So I mean, I don't understand what else that will be to debate about. That's the crest
of the issue right there. Okay, well, if if that's your time, will move over to Jay. Um. But the where the debate has gone, it seems like, is asking the question of how we know, uh, the interpretation is correct and things like that. That seems to be
what Jay is trying to press. So yeah, the issue that that's not the debate at hand, that has intus to do with the debate that night, and I actually create is about who who is keeping Actually I actually predicted that that would be his debate in my opening statement it doesn't that, but but he can. He's not an argument. It's my time, dude. And I was about to say, if you keep asking questions, I would keep answer. I don't even care about having any more time as I did,
so just be grateful that even gave you answer. Wasn't an answer, you just said they were there. That means you lost the debate. Dude. You can't. You can't give an actual You can't. I'm glad you think it's funny because everybody in the audience is laughing at you too. Dog. You can Most people are on your side because this is your YouTube channel. I don't really care about the audience says, to be fair real quick, guys, it's just like the same. It's just like you interacting with
Sam Shamoon. Dude, this is would you say, chase and to be fair, guys, any in any debate, I think the question of epistemology is going to end up being a crux issue because either side, both of you are making knowledge claims about why you believe what you believe. And I think it's an extremely pertinent question in any debate, and you don't have any way to demonstrate that the church fathers that you just said that referred to Judoyazers.
You don't have any proof that they have the same beliefs as you, because you don't know what those Judoyazers believed. You just said that they were there in all those centuries. No, what I claimed was they practice what I practice. A matter of fact, you're they didn't because you just may you have They didn't. They can't. They they didn't. You're making You're just asserting that you can't assertion. What is your evidence that in everyone?
What is the evidence that not answer? Because you can't answer why you gotta because you did. You didn't answer it, You just asserted it. Do you know the difference version? And say, now he's got to talk over me because he knows he can't answer this question because I'll be QUI just keep talking about. You're a felowbusterer. Dude, you're a selfhist You can't debate. You don't even know what a circular argument is. You said the gospel
Matthew is the gospel because it's early and decided by the gospels. How can you demonstrate time to cross examine why that's why you won't hush? How can you demonstrate that the people that you claim were your people in those centuries practiced all the things that you practice. You can't demonstrate that. I can't. Again, you just misrepresented what I said at the beginning. Was you typically do because you don't listen, you talk too much. Um. Secondly,
I've already told you. That's why I say you have to do your research. If I make answer was my answer? You just asserted it. So you don't have evidence to back up the assertion you said. They just were there. They believe what I believe. I have an amblematic I have an ample amount of evidence, and I like how a debate you would bring the evidence. It might be a good idea to bring evidence to a debate instead of asserting it. Do you ever think about that? Well, you've already
conceded to my point to be true. Down, I didn't anything. If you did, I admitted that the church. You admitted that a lot of early church files talked about Judy I was, didn't you? That doesn't mean they believe what you believe. You're just assert What is it, Judia? What did the church file say, JUDI? I was? Is? Do you think there's only one? Don't lie either? You think there's a lot. Don't accuse me a lot. And I just asked you you just got
bond is you're so mad? What is juda because you claim to have got his two minutes on the on the clock for him to cross examine you know, Jake, thank you so dily man. You just claim somebody was mad. The only person mad here is clearly that is it. You're the only person they sent a heated way. No, you're debaying a very immature way, which is okay, that's called typical. Be quiet, be quiet and use his time and there on both sides. Um, let's well, Bryceidy
pause the clock will let Bryson can talk. It should be directed ending up in some kind of point critique or question to Jay Um, but you have to be there, you go. It will be so since he's conceded that early church fathers uh, which is why I like he was in evidence that he has to concede to talk about Juday Ozers. I want him to explain to me what was the reason that church fathers called uh this group of people Juday Ozers. Please answer that question. That's a term used for a lot
of groups. Why did the church fathers call a certain group of people, judaeis give me the why and ask you who they called why they taught the necessity of the Jewish law to be saved, which is the heresy that you repeat. That doesn't tell me that in every one of those centuries those groups taught everything that you taught. So you're just assuming, demonstrate, demonstrate the
questions right now? Do you understand? Want to make it clear the reason the reason he just started over talking people in a chat because he just conceded that I was one hundred. Because you need to demonstrate, you need to demonstrate. Listen, judaizing, is it one group? Do you think it was one group? Bro? My belief system to keep the command is you just admitted that the church fathers have always talked about the set of people that
they talk about about dozens of groups. Quiet talk about pause. I did pause the clock to be fair when um, when when rhetoric is is thrown at someone, they I think it's fair that if it's the other person's time and they're throwing rhetoric at them, that they can respond. But Bryce and you have the rest of the time to ask your questions. You're perform your critiques. Thank you so I do find anywi. It is the last thing I'm say. Helpel he doesn't interpret me before I'm finished. The reason he
has to answer out because I said that people believe what I believe. He said, we don't know that. So I pressed him on what a Judayaza was and he just admitted that a Judayazer, according to the touch Fathers, was somebody that thinks, thus the law was a necessity, which is quite clear that he knows what I believe, which I texted him it is my
belief system. So he just admitted that my group of people have always existed, which is why he's now about to deflect and say, well, different types of judayazas, because he has officially, objectively speaking, lost this point. I specifically said that your claim was in every one of those centuries your group was represented. You then made your group so broad as to be anybody that's a quote Judayazer. But that term is used for even groups like the
Nestorians. You're not a Nestorian, so that's a broad term. I don't know why you're dancing over there because you just got bodied. That's a broad term that doesn't prove anything. You just assumed your point in every How do you know that in every one of those centuries they held to the beliefs that you have as a body of beliefs, because my beliefs as them is simply to keep the commandments. I never said every aspect. That's not true.
That's just like just like that, that's not just your belief system you have. You have a whole End Times philosophy appended to your book, just like how early church fathers disagree with later chang church fathers. Which is why exactly doesn't prove that your group existed in those centuries. So you just got caught. You made it didn't call anything you did. You made it so broad. That's who judaizer is a general term, right, but it's used for
any group, and I said that it was. I said that it's groups that believe that the Mosaic Law had to be kept. Do you understand that amongst those groups there's dozens of groups, because it's not one group. That's the your assumption that is just one group, it's not. That's why my question to you was, you're a group in all those centuries. Your group isn't just the belief of keep the Mosaic Law. You got other beliefs. Don't you like anti trinitarian? Right? So are you only united to the
anti trinitarian Judeo guysers? Yeah, so he's not gonna answer, all right, I pause the time. UM, I don't, I don't um. I don't think it's fair to either of your time to um just just be silent when being asked the question cross exactly, he's not gonna answer when So he does this game because if you can give me one time, if you can give me one time, he has allowed me to fully answer a question here the real quick. Both both of you guys have done um plenty of
interrupting. It is a debate, obviously not true. Not just become a cap you interrupted. If y'all are going to be disingenuous, not only care everyone every single I don't think anyone's trying to be you all. I have not interesting like me. You have. I mute, I mute my mic. When this man answers you question, No, that's your sat the same you don't answer. You stop, wait, let's stop one second. One second. When it's when it's your time, you you can interrupt. It's
Jay's time right now, he can interrupt and then that's called examination. Can I answer a question if he interrupts, It's like when you mute it and don't answer it. Dude, that's you just gave every time, every gave up you. First off, I watched a million professor to the base and crosses, and I don't care how many of you answer. You got quiet and doesn't matter fully answer the question. You didn't. You didn't. That's
not everybody. I didn't answer the question. This is your deflection because you can't answer this isn't it if you have every one of your class have to do this guy just talk to you didn't answer it? Starting to get it's it's starting to get to the point just right that right now where the debate's not moving forward because we're arguing about the debate itself. Let let me moderate the debate. Okay, let me moderate the debate. That's a nice person's
time on cross exam. Dude, got a fake look at this, fake laugh, fake you're you're just a typical person. You got quiet. That's why you don't ask you a question. They're quiet because you're shook. Hey, Jay diet J question, do you honestly I do want to know if you're just lying for no reason for your audience. Do you believe that's all you got? That's all you got because you can't. You can't prove from
heretical group. Exam down. Just let me talk for four seconds. No, because you're you're just all you want to do is talk about lying everybody. Do you actually you embarrassed yourself? Bro? Bro Jane? Do you actually believe that the reason I'm muting my mic is because I don't have answer for your questions? Believe absolutely so? Can I? You can make faces all you won't do it, that's not that's not gonna do anything, and you can get upset. But the real issue here, bro Jay, this
wasn't me and you. I'm using rhetoric. Rhetoric is fine. Let's keep it about the actual points, not meta. It's a joke. Why can you answer that question? I can answer every question you pas so far. Everyone know you didn't you understand just asserting things isn't an answer. Yeah, And every time I try to explain to you how it wasn't just in certain things, you got upset and continue interte united so judaizing groups in the fifth, sixth, seventh century that we're say, Trin, is it my time
yet? Yeah, so he don't want to answer, so this is what Yeah, so he's not gonna talk. The time was paused. So I want everybody to see that he won't answer the specific question. I will answer your question for the first mate of mine, but not to interrupt. No, no, no, that's not that's not how That's not how it works. So how cross examination works, how it remains fair is that the person who's time it is, when it's your time rayson, you can interrupt as
much as as much as you'd like to keep the question focused. Jay has thirty seconds left. If Jay goes silent, that's not fair to your time. It's not fair to his time if you go silent when he's asking questions as well. See, he only has twenty seconds left on his time. Let's keep it focused on the topics and not about either side, either side talking about the debate itself. Let's keep it focused on the topic. I think I think y'aded to watch a few crosses eminations in professional debates. But
it's okay, you're not a professional debate. What are you talking about? Jay? Jay has twenty more second question, So worried about my time, and I was about to answer your question for your time. I literally about to answer your question time. I'm gonna ask the question oh again, okay?
Correct? Are you united too the Trinitarian groups say in fourth, six and seven centuries that were Judaizers, Do you have the same faith as those people because you're an anti Trinitarian. You're claiming that all of those groups are your group? Is that true? So just to be clear, he caught me an anti Trinitarian, which I told him I wasn't a text message,
so I don't even know why he's using that right now. But just to be clear, anybody that teaches to keep the commandments, which is why if you actually look up Messianic churches that today they're mixed with people that believe in Trinitarian oneness and other people. So anybody that preaches that follows Jesus and teaching people to keep the commandments, I don't care about your other be a lot of theology. But if you believe in Jesus and teach people to keep the
commandments, you are my group. So when church proathers talked about juda yasers, they were talking about people that believe in Jesus and as you've already said people, You've already admitted this. They're talking about people that believe in Jesus and also try to judayas Christianity, which is teaching to keep the commandments. So yes, if they do that, they are part of my group. You admitted you didn't even know who my group was. Was why you wanted
me to explain it? Said? If you don't want to alienate Christians because you're passing yourself off as a Christian when you're not Bryson, you have two minutes on the clock you can feel free to interrupt during your cross examination time. That's time you can feel free to It's okay, I'm an adult. UM, so I will actually pick it back off your questions. I really don't have no answer questions. I like, we already figure out the issue
with this conversation. Um. But so since you've already admitted and I've already told you who my group was, and I just laid it out to you again, my question to you is when they say at Juda Yazer, if they are referring to people that follow Jesus and teach people to keep the commandments, and I say, that's my group, that's my group. So was
I right when I said my group has always been in existence? Of course, that's just ingenuous because you can make the parameters as wide as you want to be any group that fits in, so that you can then have an example in every one of those centuries when you know very well that those groups are all divided against one another, and there's not a consistent lineage in every century of a succession. That's my point. We have absolute succession. There's
one church and all those centuries it's the Church. Yeah, it's the church that you got the Gospel of Matthew from. Right. Yeah, So that's irrelevant. That's because Jesus said that the kingdom. It's brysons time. Go ahead, Bryson, I haven't asked a question. You don't ask questions. It's not your time, Okay. So the reason I just said that was irrelevant to what I said is I just told you my group. So unless you claim that I'm lyinding about my group, by ba, this is the
group I've been saying I'm a part of. You can't find me saying fallacis you try. You're trying. You're trying to claim it's too general. The reason you don't want it to be too general because you have to admit your wrong And I don't understand. I just I just told you. I just told you my group. You've already admitted what Judiajas were according to according to the Touch Fathers. So if if you're not with those groups, let me ask you. You're doing a word, let me ask you, Let me
ask you. Let me ask you this way, Dan, let me ask you this way. Then if you have to accept what I just claimed my group was, I don't care how general you think it is based on that you're based on how general it is? Man, you can't even make an argument. It's time Bryson go ahead. Does that mean if you have to accept what I just said? Does that mean according to you and what you have already claimed, you have conceded the point that my group that you are
to claim you didn't know who it was you you have to claim? Is it true that this is al always existed according to Church fathers. No, your argument is based on a word concept fallacy that you can identify and everything. Answer the question. I don't want to not just general it is based on what I was just saying. I'm gonnaw generally you don't care if it to church fathers. Has this Has this group always existed? Do you know what a word concept fels is? Has the group always don't ask me questions
to your time is up? Is your time? Has this group always existed? Your argument is based on a word consipt of fallacy, interest of my time? All right? So that was that was a little over. It is fair to go, um, to unpack a question on either side. If either of you feels a question is flawed, Bryson, if you feel a question he asked his flawed and he asked for yes or no, feel free to say this is not a yes or no answer, Um, Jay, you have two minutes on the clock for your time for cross examination.
Yeah. The argument is based on a word concept fallacy, that the term judaizer can be extended to be so broad that it encompasses any potential group that has a very basic general belief that he shares. And so, as I pointed out, in the early Church, the word judaizers used across the board for arians, for nestorians, for anybody that's an anti Trinitarian. And my point about the Trinity was not to deflect to the Trinity but to point out
that your group doesn't exist in continuity. You know the argument I'm making. You're coming up with ways that there's so broad a description of heterodox people that oh, yeah, well, I'm it'd be like me saying I agree with the heretics, and there's heretics in every century, so my church as the heretics existed in every century. See, I got you. That's called a word concept fallacy because you know that you don't have that qutuity with those with
those groups. No, I'm having to explain why your argument is a fallacy, which is okay. I don't have to ask you a question. I can explain the argument to you what you don't understand. Then I can ask you a question, how do you have a continuity with those groups that don't
believe what you believe when it comes to things like the Trinity. As I've already splanned you last time, and as you've already conceded to um the word Judaeyazar, as you've already said, this is according to your criteria, has to include people that are that follow Christ and claim that the mosaic law is which is different, is different, which is different? It's naturally broad, which is different. Oh, thank you. So your argument rested on a
broad definition, which is why that's what you said. You just consider. No, No, that's truly my group. So I don't think that doesn't exist as an actual body of people. You see, it's not an organization. That's my point. No, Jesus said, who said it has to be? That's my argument, dude, that Jesus said that the church would not have the gates of help prevail against it in Matthew sixteen. So you have a thousand different sects over seven centuries that don't actually have a continuous belief
other than one thing in common. That's so work about that, because you are still you are now fully conceding your point. No, I'm pointing out that your sophistry is a dumb fallacy. It's a word concept fallacy. It's just I just gave you an example of why it doesn't work two minutes now, and I can because I don't want to point o that before you said we had to ask you, and I tried to explain something beforehand. You don't want to clear clear it's okay to for either of you to explain the
argument that you can't cool, But that's total. That's totally fine. Well he's a debate examination, a debate, great, yeah, yeah, of course. Um here you got two minutes, all the clocks already interrupt pressing. Okay, so from my time, I have to just explain to you, and I hope that could do it as simple as possible. UM, I just want to just recap this one more time, be the last time
I recap it. You just don't like how broad it is. I told you before you ask me specifically, are people that believe in the trinity but teach people to keep the law, they are part of my group? And I told you yes. So unless you just flat out tell me on Lyne, everything else you said is null and void and irrelevant. I told you
who my group was. I've been telling you who my group was, and then I gave you I'm the one who brought up how church fathers talked about Juda yas Is all throughout, and you said, has your group existed? What's evidence for your group? I then gave you evidence for my group, and you play, oh, that's too broad to be a group. Oh my group, my group, it's my time. My group is just broad. So it's people that teach keep the commandment. I'm gonna saying, keep
going. I'm ex playing to you my group for the last time, my group of people. I don't get you even Trinity one is. This is my fourth time saying it's by the way, Trinity one is whatever it is. If you teach, if you keep commandments, and teach people to keep the commandments. As Jesus stated at Matthew five, you are part of my group. It doesn't need to be called a name or or have a group for that to be my group, the people I view as my brothers in
Christ. Um. And you've already conceded that the Church fathers talked about these people all always since the beginning, which is conceded that my group has always existed and always been talked about. That is just the basic objective truth of them there. Okay, And you do have thirty seconds left. If you have anything else, any questions you want to direct to jay Um. I mean, all you want to do is try to twist at turn it again as he's been doing. I don't really I don't really have an extra of
questions. Yeah. The argument was that there's a visible body of people known as the Church, the kingdom that is one Lord, one faith, one body. According to Paul, that means it can't be split amongst a thousand different sects. So for you to maintain your argument, you did exactly what
I said. You had to make it so broad that it includes any possible person with one belief and you don't care about all of the other multitude of beliefs that they're all divided amongst themselves about so that means that you don't actually have a continuous group. That was the argument from Matthew sixteen. So in your view, the true Church of the Remnant, or whoever you think it is, is all of these thousands of sex all divided against one another.
So did Satan prevail against your church to divide it into thousands of different sects amongst these seven centuries. No, Satan only prevailed against like the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, which is why YA don't keep the commandment. You didn't answer my question, So how is how did I say? I said, no answer, No, that was a two quot quay another fallacy. You know what a two quot quad fallacy is. You know you know what answer the question already? You said, You said that you put it back
on the way you put it back. That's a two quot quite fallacy to put it back on me that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church were the ones that capitulated Satan. When I asked you a specific question about your schism and divided groups throughout those centuries, you didn't answer. You said, no, it's the Orthodox Church. Yeah, I say no, which is answered two
quo qu no, it's not. You know what if you don't even know, you don't why are you debating you don't know three basic fallacies you've already committed two quote quay, Bro, you're just doing what all everybody doing. They just don't pological fallacies, want to one body on one more, one faith, one body. You don't even have that. That's why the do the Orthodox prevailed against for everybody. Also, that's a two quote way.
You're just saying you don't have that. You don't have that, you don't Yes, we do have that, but that's I've already said no to the first questions are you gonna do? And say, oh, so, what's the sea I want kind of respond to you said I'm gonna You're not gonna respond to it because you can't do it. I said, no, that's not an answer. Just no, dude, you just literally by definitions.
You just lost bro. No, you just you just said that. I asked you a question and you said, no. What's the argument for that being the case? That's time on that Bryson. You have two minutes on the clock for your cross, and I will expland it to him. So the reason it didn't prevail against the people that I believe um are truly like fully in Christ, the people that teach to keep the commandments, is because we know biblically that those are the people that Satan will wage war with.
Didn't say Satan will wage war with a church at all. Um doesn't say that in the Boca Daniel, doesn't say that in at the twenty four, doesn't say that, and really really any problem it's it's prison's time. Yeah, But what the Bible does say in Revelation twelve is that saying it's wage war against those that that keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony
of Jesus Christ. The problem, I think the issue you're having is you're just so used to having like an official body it has to be called a name when it doesn't biblically, which is why I'm just one hundred and sent correct. If you keep the commandments and the testimony of God, that is the body. Those are the people say in waging world, waging war against which is why I said no, because in Daniel seven it talks about how Satan works. It says people will be arrogant, an attempt to change the
times and the law of the Most High. And the reason I brought up the Catholic Church and the Orthodoxy Church is because objectively speaking, that is something that has happened, which you have tried to defend this entire of this debate. So no, Satan has not prevailed against who I believe to be the body, because we still keep the commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus
Christ. And you still have forty seconds on the clock. Prison. Oh oh, I guess my question will be does that properly answer your question? Jade? I mean, you said no, but it's not it's a nonsensical answer because you just said no. They they're the true Church, They're the true people. Well, you ask has Satan? Hey, it's a very simple question. You already I answered. I thought I answered it so beautifully. Bro you no again, you have two minutes on the clock of your
cross examination. Yeah. So you restated your argument about what you think is the case in church history, and you said, we know that there's always these people because the Bible says so, No, I want to know in those centuries. Yes, you did. You said that the people that it would be warned against the people that keep the commandments. And by the way, Revelation twelve is about the Church. It's the group of people that come from the woman, the queen of Heaven in that text that gave birth to
the Messiah. That queen of Heaven is Mary. Mary is the Theotokos. So that chapter is about the church. So yeah, absolutely, the church is called the Kingdom of Heaven. And Matthew sixteen, the passage that I'm referring to Jesus that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Kingdom,
and that he would give the keys to the apostles. He gives the keys to Peter, he gives the keys to the rest the apostles in Matthew eighteen, two chapters later, and I'm saying that that means that there's one Lord, one faith, one body as a visible organization in history, the one that you get the Gospel of Matthew from that you admit, you appeal to our tradition to get that same visible body is the Church of history. That
church is unified. It teaches the same things throughout the seven Ecommenical councils. And I asked you for the unity of your group as a visible organization throughout those centuries, and you said, it's not a visible organization, doesn't have to be. It can be a bunch of different groups. Okay, So Satan did prevail to split your church into anti Trinitarian and Trinitarian groups. Dude, that makes no sense. Oh it cannot respond. Yeah, okay,
yeah, you just very incorrect. I wold never says the body has to agree with one theology, but it does say. And by the way, your church is definitely not the body to talk about it revelation revelation to Will. And I'm gonna tell you why, because that body has to hold to the commandments and a testimony of Judus Christ, which your body don't do. You don't believe Christ, you don't have the testimony of Christ. All right, Bryson, it will be your two minutes on the clock for your time
for cross examination. We have about fifteen minutes left for crossing or sixteen minutes left beautiful. So so I think I'm starting to see the issue here. Um he believes you have to agree with the same exact theology to be part of the body, which leads to what he said before. Now it's starting to make sense. That's just varying error. There's nothing to back it up,
no scritchs. A matter of fact, for a large part of early Orthodox history and Catholic history, there was many belief systems, which is why they had counsels and bishops had to vote on different belief systems and see which one was right. Matter of fact, claim of the Trinity was necessary need to be a Christian. That was way later, um, in church history,
when that was when that was going to be said. That's why so many church fathers wrote so many books trying to explain to Trinity and debate against other people that was supposedly of the same faith. Um so, but bitterly speaking, is just not necessary Trinity one. It's not that that is necessary necessary to be a Christian. He talked about the the christ did he means divine, claiming that I don't believe Jesus is divine. It's just I mean,
flat out's fault. But like I said, not about going to that silly argument, Bryson, feel free to go ahead, Yes, sir, um So it's all right. You'll have your time to call that out if if that's if that's how you feel, Bryson, go ahead. You have about um a little over a minute, okay, Den he means uh, deed, he means divine. Divine means from God or of God or God. I believe that Jesus is clearly from God and a friend of Jesus Lord. By the way, So not being this ingenuous, you just don't know
what you're talking about. Um. So, as I said, your body can't be the body spoken about in the Bible, because you have spent almost two hours saying you don't have to keep the commandment. So I know for a fact the body that I say it is the body is the true body and not yours. All right, j you have two minutes on the clock. Yeah. First of all, that's not what divinity means. It does not mean from God. It's a generic term that can be Well, I
don't know where you're shaking your head. Literally, that's not what it means. I mean humans are from God? Does that mean we're divine? You don't even know what the words mean. The word God is a general term that can be used in scripture to refer to angels, to devils, It can be used to refer to human beings, and it can be used to referred to God himself. So it's a general term that can be used in
different ways. But to pass yourself off as a Christian when you know good and well you do not believe the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, which are defined by things like the Council of Nicia. It would be like me saying, well, I'm remember the Communist Party, but I don't believe what the Communist Party teaches. Oh I'm a member of you know, pick any group that has a set defined group of characteristics and to then say, well, but
I don't actually believe those things, but I am that thing. You don't have the right to just use those terms or to appropriate those appropriate those things to yourself, just like there's not a unified judaizing group. So you don't believe in the trinity. And if you believe Jesus is a creature, then you're not. You don't believe in the deed of Christ in the sense of the way the Church has always taught it. And it's not true that the
Trinity is a late doctrine. Where do you think where do you think the Trinity came from? Which version of the Trinity? There's only one version in the first thousand years of Christianity. Well, the original one was Tertullian. Then there's a guy. People claim that you don't know what you're talking about. You think Tertillion made up the Trinity. Um, he was the first person at point the time Trinit's ask for an absolute fact. Then that doesn't
mean that he's the person that made up the doctrine. Yeah, so I can't interrupt and cross examination. So I don't know why you're shaking your head. It's a cross examination that means I can rup. Oh, he's already established you can. So I'm going off your rules. But I'm still making face because you have a consent. You have comes like a child, if I'm being quite frank. Examination. Yeah, I watched a lot of those, and this is not how they typically back to the debate. But I
don't want to argue about the debating. Where do where do you think the Trinity and the de to Christ came from? If you think it's late, I want to know, well, I didn't say they. I didn't say the Christ. That's why you're trying to move the goalpost. The two doctors go together, No, because that means what look I mean you have to say one is doctrine. It is the same thing which Tertullian wrote books about against Praisi is arguing against one is doctrine. Both sides believe that Jesus is
a deity. By the way, you need to go look up the definition of the divine. You're objectively wrong for like the fiftieth time and it's debate told you that the word god is a generic term, and you gave them. You gave it one definition. I said divine. You said divine. God and deity and divine are all the same reference and they refer to generic terms. We'll move to Bryson's two minutes for cross examination. Okay, thank you. So he claimed that divine is not mean from God and anybody like
like, if I'm not mistake of you, just google it. I don't think no, definition, devine wouldn't have that in there Google, so um he claimed that that wasn't the definition. So he's not gonna admit he's objectly wrong about that because he has a hard time uman that period us. Secondly, that's what I was saying about Tertullian. Tertullian most popular writings are called
against Prasius, and which essentially is him debating uh Prasius. It's just his writing, so there's no um counter to counter arguments, but it's him debating Praisius on the one is doctrine. And if anybody doesn't know what one is doctrine is is they believe the sort of what a Zurka tried to imply rear. He claims he believes in the Trinity. Um is the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all Jesus. Many Jesus is the Father.
There is no separation, there's no distinction. But they also believe Jesus is uh deity obviously because they believe Jesus the father. Um. So when he claims the deity of Rice and the Trinity is connected to know it's not. They're clearly two separate things. That's just an objective truth and trenitized, as I said, started with tertillion. There was one guy beforehand, and that wasn't a trinity, that was more like a QUADRUPOLEI or whatever the quite terminalogy
of that is. But as far as the as far as the most populate residents of the trinity, doctor, and the term trinitaise that definitely came from to Chilian for an objective fact, and then it evolved from there because that's not even the same trinity that I don't know if Orthodox believe in that same trinity. But then the most popular trainings are not even the same as it was during that time. And you have thirty seconds left. Oh dang,
Um, I gotta start talking slower or something that felt like forever. Um, I will just repeat what I said. Uh, your your church is not the body Scripture like I said before, because they don't keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. I just want to continue to not rub it in, but continue slamming at home. All right, Jay, you got two minutes on the clock. We have about ten minutes left in the cross exam. Yeah, yeah,