Full Debate with GoCC Elder Elder Rawchaa Shayar on the Dividing Line

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We have a live debate today with specific time frames and topics.

Specifically, there will be three topics. One is our representative from the

GOCC will affirm the King James Version with the Apocrypha as the final biblical authority.

Topic number two, I will affirm Sunday worship Lord's Day from the New Testament. We'll also address

Christmas. And topic number three, the GOCC side will affirm that the

Israelites and Gentiles will not be saved equally. I understand there are differences amongst the groups there.

Here's the format. Eight -minute opening statements, five -minute rebuttals, three -minute of crossfire. So that's a total of six minutes where it's one minute, one minute, one minute, one minute, one minute.

So it's not quite cross -examination, but it's as close as we can get. And then four -minute closing statements makes for 40 minutes per topic.

My understanding is we will also have a two -minute introductory period, but I'm looking toward the control room.

Are we all – We do not have Mr. Shire in online. I don't know what it is that they're doing over there.

We've connected up a couple of times and they disconnected. Then they wanted me to call a phone number, and there seems to be some confusion.

All right. Well, that happens when you try to do these types of things. I have notified them that the show is now on the air and that we need to connect up.

So I don't know what's going on. Well, if anybody happens to have another means of contacting them,

I'm sure they're just trying to put things together. And obviously trying to coordinate two programs at the same time is not the easiest thing to do.

And so we'll just wait for them to join up. Just give me a high -five sign or whatever else it is.

And I guess I didn't have to go quite as quickly in explaining things as I did.

I will be timing. It would be nice to have a moderator, but a moderator requires even a third connection, which only complicates things as far as the technical side goes.

But I will be taking very close cognizance of the time, and I very much hope that that will be done on the other side.

I will be timing the other side as well. And once the time has expired, my intention is to sort of hold this up to the microphone because it makes a beeping noise.

It will pretty much make sure everybody knows that the timeframe has been exhausted.

And I asked for timeframes because I think if anyone would look back at last week when we had our conversation,

I haven't taken the time to do it. But it was maybe 70, 30, something like that, on the other side, as far as the actual amount of time.

And so I felt that it was much better for the audience and shows more respect for the topics if we have a specific timeframe and we have time controls that are available to us.

I see Rich talking to someone, but I don't know exactly what that means as of yet.

It may just mean that we're not going to be doing Skype. We're going to be doing phone line. Is that what we've got going on here?

No, I have a video here. Oh, okay. Hello. I'm here.

All right. So am I. One moment. Let me get a few things ready here.

Okay. One moment.

I am hearing many Skype sounds. I guess that's what I'll call them. Okay. One moment.

Okay. You hear me here, right? I certainly can. Okay. Let me straighten out my camera here with you here.

I'm going to put you in through my U -string, but it will just be audio, okay?

That's my understanding. All right. One moment. Okay. Can you say something there?

Yes, certainly. Be glad to welcome you. Looking forward to moderated equal time debate.

And just wondering who's going to be going first. I understand there's a little two -minute introductory thing that each of us will have.

Just wondering who will be the first one to speak on that. Okay. We did some modifications, and we sent that.

Right? Each person have eight minutes? Yep. Five -minute rebuttals. Yes. Three -minute crossfire, four -minute closing statement.

Three -minute crossfire and four -minute closing statement. All right. Okay. The first thing is James White will affirm that the

King James Version and the Apocrypha is not the final authority. Well, actually, what was sent to me says you will affirm the

King James Version with the Apocrypha is the final biblical authority. Okay. I don't know if you got the last...

Well, that's one I got. Obviously, in debate, if you're making an affirmative statement, you get to go first.

And you're making an affirmative statement that the King James is. He's making an affirmative statement that it isn't.

Right. That's not an affirmative statement if you're saying it isn't. Okay. Well, he can make an affirmative statement to what is.

Is that good? Right. So, let him bring in an affirmative statement where King James stand when it comes to the authority, the authoritative record of the

Hebrews. Right. He gets to go first in the first topic. I go first in the second topic.

He goes first in the third topic. That's what was sent to me anyways. And that's fine.

That works fine. But then there's also, it says, first, each person will get two minutes to do an introduction or something.

If you don't want to do that, that's fine. We can just dive right into it. Okay. I'm fine with that. All right.

You know what? What? It was already confirmed how this would go.

Yeah. Okay. Right. Now, this is what we can do since you have one spread or itinerary of this particular debate and I have another.

Yeah. I just took what was sent to me and put it in Dropbox and have it open on my screen. I understand, but it was modified and sent to you 24 hours in advance, but it's okay.

This is what we're going to do. All right. If you want me to go first,

I'll do it. I will start with King James with no problem. Right. Okay.

Then in order, all right, so we can make this right.

We're going to have next. Okay. James White will affirm the

Lord's Day. Right. And then James White will affirm that the

Israelites and Gentiles are equal. Okay, I can go first and last one.

That's fine. Is that good? Sure. No problem. Okay, that's fine. All right.

So eight minute opening statement for you.

Okay. First of all, I would like to say all praises be to the Most High.

And a matter of fact, let's go into that first two minutes. I wanted to talk about because some people wanted to know what was the reaction from the last debate.

Right. So you want you want to do a two minute discussion of that and then I get two minutes as well. That's fine.

Okay, go ahead. Okay. Number one. I would like to say all praises be to the

Most High. A higher in the name of Yeshua, our Lord and Savior. And a blessed

Shalom to all of my brothers and sisters. Those that love the work and those that hate the work.

Of course, there have been some mixed reviews on our side.

One thing that that stood out from your particular program that was sent to me is that.

You know, the racist comments against black people weren't wasn't good, but that's that's to be expected sometimes.

I'm sure you're getting something, some backlash on your side. The next thing we notice, you did a blog.

Stating, you know, your opinion of. Of some of my brief statements.

When it came to the name of the Most High, did not get that from him. Henry Mack, that was revealed years ago with the

Most High dealing with our church in 2002. Okay. He actually probably got it from learning from my videos.

The next thing is. The Most High says that he would use the foolishness of this world to confound the wise.

Okay. I'm not a theologian. But I know the book. And today, the

Most High Word will stand. Okay. And hopefully through all of this, we both will learn and come to a higher understanding of the

Most High. Okay. You can give your statement. Okay.

Well, just very briefly, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't remember blogging anything.

We did a program yesterday on the on the overall topic. I was very disappointed with the responses.

I saw some just horrific things online. I was disappointed with how some people responded from my side.

But to be perfectly honest with you, I watched an entire video from some Hebrew Israelites.

Where I was identified as Satan, the devil, filled with profanity. I mean, just absolutely reprehensible.

The racism. God hates all white people, et cetera, et cetera. Bad stuff. But of course, that was just sort of on the side.

They were attacking you primarily, which was really, really sad. I recognize that there are tremendous divisions on that side of the aisle on this.

And I'm sorry for any mistreatment that you've received. But I hope that those things can be laid to the side.

Because the issues that we will address today hopefully will be very useful to a wide range of people.

I've had a lot of people contact us. And say, this kind of dialogue needs to continue.

It needs to be done. There are other topics that need to be addressed. And there are. And evidently, this type of thing just hasn't really been happening.

And this is an opportunity for people to get to hear both sides. And people get to hear both sides with the same timeframes.

One side not talking over the other. Things like that. I think that will be very useful. So with that, I'm ready to get started.

I'm ready to dove in, but I wanted to make another statement before we go forward. All right. I also received a plethora of email.

Okay. From, I would say, white, right -wing, white

Christians. Who was wondering why you didn't touch on at all. The 800 -pound girl in the room.

That black people are saying they're Israelites. And Jewish people are not. But, of course, I wanted to make that a part of this discussion.

And you said you wasn't prepared or ready for this. But that's fine. But I wanted to put it out there that I did work, you know, a tremendous point in time with you, going back and forth, trying to see if we can talk about that.

But I'm going to let them know that I did have that on the table. Okay. And, okay.

We're not going to talk about that. But let's deal with the points at hand.

The truth will stand. So are you beginning now? I'm going to begin. All right.

Eight minutes. Okay. Go ahead. Eight minutes. Okay. Now, some people ask, why am

I asserting that the King James or Israelites are certain that the King James Version Bible is the authority?

Right. Over other translations or the other books about the most top.

Well, the way I can answer that is through scripture. Let me go to Psalms 147.

Okay. Psalms 147 mentions this 19 and 20.

He showed his word unto Jacob. His statutes and his judgments unto Israel.

He have not dealt so with any nation. And as for his judgments, they have not known him.

Which means the most highly gave his commandments, his law, statutes, and commandments to the children of Israel.

That's who we are. Now, the Bible itself gives you a doctrine on how to deal with it.

The book itself. Isaiah 34 and 16. It reads.

Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, not books. And read. No one of these shall fail.

And none shall want her mate. Which means you cannot make the book with any other book.

But there's some issues here. We have Gentiles who have come lately under the

Roman Catholic Church and Jesuits who are looking to give credibility to outside sources against our brother.

King James. Now, I'm sitting here with the

King James Version Bible. Okay. Now, before I go into King James, let me mention

King James was, in fact, as you can see here, a black man, a king from the

Dark Ages who sat on three thrones at once. The underlying issue with these records being debated today is the fact that what was going on in what they would call the

Reformation or during the time that there was a protest against the Roman Catholic Church. Well, that was an independent battle between Jacob and Esau because our people, the

Israelites, ruled Europe. So one reason why I will only use the

King James because King James stood for me. When I read in the preface and I have a

King James 1611. It reads great and metaphor where the blessings most dread sovereign.

Which almighty God, the father of all mercies bestowed upon us, the people of England. England is angels land.

English was an angel's tongue, a language we created to get away from the satanic Latin.

When first he sent your majesty, royal person to rule and reign over us, for whereas it was an expectation of many who wish not well unto our

Zion. So King James was a Israelite.

He was not a homosexual. He was not with what the Jesuits and Catholics wrote against them.

Twenty five years after his death. OK, he got scholars together.

He gathered Israelite records together because he was an Israelite, knowing that the

Roman Catholic Church was conspiring against him and his people who were scattered and soon would serve.

Now, when we look at this, there have been a whitewashing throughout the earth concerning Christ and his people.

OK, now, it's ironic that that when we were talking the last time he went into a father of Antioch speaking of you,

Mr. White, Mr. White, not showing you that in Antioch, the disciples were all black men.

I'm going to ask 13 and one real quick. I'm going to show you why I'm standing with the

Bible at King James Version at 13 and one reads.

Now, there was word in the church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers as Barnabas and Simeon.

That was called Niger. That was called

Niger. Is that crystal clear? That was called

Niger. So the Jews and the

Israelites, the disciples were all black men, whitewashed by the Romans.

So once we fell in 70 A .D., the Romans began an imposition against us and began to not only destroy us, but look to change our records as a point of control before the most high began to awaken his people.

Now, part of the King James Bible is the Apocrypha.

It's been translated. I've accepted it. This is the first time

Edomites attempted to deal with our forefathers records.

OK, when you read in the Apocrypha. And I'm at Maccabees three and 48.

When Antioch's epiphanies and others look to destroy our people and they laid open the book of the law, where the heathen had sought to paint the likeness of their images.

They always look to take down our records and put themselves instead of us.

I'm going here in Maccabees, the first chapter, the 56th verse. OK, and I need and I hope you all can hear me clearly.

OK. And burnt incense at the doors of their houses and in the streets.

And when they had written in pieces, the books of the law, which they found, they burnt with fire and whosoever so found with any of the books of the

Testament or any consented to the law, the king's commandment was that they should be put him to death.

That they should put him to death. So they was looking to kill us.

OK. And destroy our records. Who did this? The Greeks and the Romans. Now, as we deal with King James, he realized that he was in.

A compromise or what you would call in a you know, there was an assault against him from the

Roman Catholic Church. OK, so he put scholars together. To hold dear our record.

So that we again would rise as a people, the children of Israel. It so happened.

There's no feedback. Yeah, that means your time's up. OK, go on.

OK. All right. I'll start my timer for my. OK, the

King James translation of the Bible is a venerable 17th century Anglican translation.

It was not the first English translation by a stretch of the imagination. We have Wycliffe, we have Tyndale. You have the

Bishop's Bible. You have the Geneva Bible, which is a fine translation. It exists today in multiple revisions.

You have the 1769 Blaney revision. I'd like to know which one actually is supposed to be the final authority because there are many revisions.

1611, numbers of years after that, 1769, you have the Oxford, you have the Cambridge. They are not identical to one another.

I'd like to know which one of these is being utilized and which one of these is being put forward as the final analysis of all of these things.

The translation work itself was based upon printed editions of the 1525

Blomberg text, the Hebrew text, and the five editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza as far as the

Greek went. And so there was not original manuscript work being done in the production of the

King James translation. And hence, it's based really upon about, really less than a dozen manuscripts, whereas today we have access to over 5 ,700.

Now, the text it's based upon represents primarily the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The papyri had not yet been discovered, so really it represents, in the

New Testament, a text from around the 12th century or so, whereas we can get back all the way to the 2nd century with the manuscripts that we have today.

And so, that is why modern translations, if your goal is to actually know what the inspired writers wrote, and they didn't write in King James English, nothing that was said from the

Psalter or anything else had anything to do with King James Bible at all, because the King James Bible did not exist until 1611, obviously.

As to the Apocrypha, the translators of the King James Version did not believe that the

Apocrypha was canonical. It was placed between the Testaments, not in the Tanakh, it was not included in the text itself of what we would call the

Old Testament. The Apocryphal works were never accepted by the Jewish people, which is a fascinating thing.

I don't know why those who claim to be Israelites today would accept books that the ancient

Israelites never accepted as scripture. There is a clear differentiation between what the

Jewish people laid up in the Temple, for example, and the Apocryphal books. The Apocryphal books were never laid up in the

Temple. Josephus did not see them as canonical. There is a very long tradition, even amongst the

Christians, found in Jerome, in Origen, in Miletus Sardis, recognizing that the

Apocryphal books were not canon scripture. When you put all this together, and then you join it with assertions such as that King James was a black man, when the reality, to anyone who looks at history, we know who his parents and his grandparents were.

They were very, very, very white British people. Every contemporary painting of the

King, including the ones that he would have been involved with and would have seen and were displayed in the palace, show him to be very much like me, a pasty white

Scotsman. There isn't any question about this. There just isn't. When you hold a belief that no scholars in the world would ever hold, when you can't bring together evidence that can be agreed upon, that's a real problem.

The question that we have to ask of the Hebrew Israelite movement is, if you're going to assert that the

King James Version is the final authority, what is your specific textual foundation for that?

I heard nothing defending the supremacy of the Byzantine text type.

You would have to specifically defend what's called the Textus Receptus, and the specific choices made by the

King James translators in regards to textual variance to be able to establish the ultimate authority of the

King James translation. You would have to defend the 1525 Bomberg Hebrew text. You would also, if you're going to be honest, have to deal with what the translators themselves said in regards to the utilization of the

Greek Septuagint, the choices they made. I've not heard any Hebrew Israelites going into the actual history and showing a specific knowledge of the nature of the

King James translation, where it came from, what its sources are, and then the revisions that it has gone through.

Because I have yet to encounter a Hebrew Israelite that was actually using the 1611

King James. Everyone that I've encountered so far was using the 1769 Blaney revision.

Well, what about the differences between the 1611 and the 1769? Are we going to allege that Blaney was a black man too, and try to somehow connect that in somehow, that he was a

Hebrew, to try to change history on that as well? I don't know what the answers to these questions are.

But if the movement as a whole is going to establish any kind of meaningful foundation for making this claim, these are just a few of the things that must be brought forward.

These are just a few of the things that must be interacted with. And so far, I have not seen any evidence that even the most studied of the

Hebrew Israelites have availed themselves of information in regards to modern textual criticism, in regards to the papyri that have been discovered since the 1930s, the light that these things show and shed upon the original writings.

And so really the question is, don't we want to know what was written by Isaiah?

Isn't that the ultimate authority? Not something that comes 2 ,300 years later, but what was written by Isaiah, what was written by John, what was written by Paul?

Isn't that our ultimate authority? And so if you grab hold of an

English translation, a language that did not exist during the time of the apostles of the

Lord Jesus Christ, during the time of the prophets of the ancient people of Israel, doesn't that translation have to be corrected by the original languages that the prophets and apostles themselves spoke?

How do you go about doing that if you don't know anything about textual criticism or do not engage the original languages on that level?

These are just some of the questions that must be raised to what is clearly a tradition that is not binding upon anyone.

The only authority a tradition can be given is the authority of the people who hold that tradition. And so the questions

I would then have, and hopefully we'll hear an answer now in the rebuttal section, what about the sources?

What about the different versions? And what is your real foundation for asserting that this is the final authority in light of the questions that I have raised?

Okay, that's my time. And so now we have five minute rebuttals.

So, Elder, it's your turn. Okay, here's my five minute rebuttal. In Isaiah 28 and 11.

Okay, I'm going to read it. Okay, I think there's some key points.

I know you practice your books, but there's a few points out of the Bible that you have to realize when it comes to prophecy and how the book would be given that that will actually give you some understanding.

When you go to Isaiah 28 and 11, it tells us, and you read it here.

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to his people. So we were

Hebrews and when we fell, we lost our identity after being scattered. And that the

Most High would use a record at the very end to bring us back to him.

I'm speaking as a child of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So even though you're going through all these different translations and what was what and and what was there and all that, the bottom line is our people.

I'm speaking of my people has done have done just fine with the

King James that took us through slavery. Nat Turner used the

Bible. Seeing that there was hope and standing against a government oppression.

He seemed that Egyptian captivity and related that to his people. Okay, Deuteronomy 28 breaks down of people that were going cargo slave ships.

They would kill us for reading the Bible. So that was that new tongue, that English. We don't care what stages it went through.

What we care is our brother King James preserved it for us. And if there's no coincidence at the same time, 1831, that a few years after that, slavery was abolished in English.

In England, we were using that Bible. And guess what? That was the King James Version that got us out of that.

That was the King James Version to the point where Westcott and Hort and Westcott and Hort. I think you want to hit their process.

Proselyte began to say, well, we found some new records. We found a

New Testament that now so that now they get a little grubby Jesuit hands to go against what was written to preserve us.

The King James Version got us to our slavery. OK, it took us to our captivity.

It took us to the civil rights movement. And guess what? That's the

Bible that's freeing us. And those are six. The Bible says in two days I will revive, revive them and they will live in my sight.

That's a prophecy that the most I will begin to bring us back. If the King James wasn't there, we would have stayed under the hand of the

Romans. But the most I have set us free with that book. So that's one thing you can't get in a theologian seminary college is the spirit of understanding prophecy.

OK, that's the key. You can't take the King James away from us. No matter how slick you try.

It's the book of our forefathers. You have no business staking, staking claim to our book and claiming what should be authentic because it wasn't given to you in the first place.

I don't need five minutes. OK. All right. Let me set my thing here for five minutes.

I will. I will take mine if you don't mind. All right. Five minutes. Here we go. It's difficult to respond to the presentation so far because from a debate perspective, no meaningful facts have been presented.

There have been many traditions, there have been many feelings, there have been many assertions. But in a debate, you're supposed to present facts, tie them together and demonstrate how they present a coherent whole.

What we've heard is, well, my people have used the King James. Well, people have used the Latin Vulgate. That doesn't make the

Latin Vulgate the final authority. The real issue obviously has to be not what your experience is or what your claims are, what your particular modern group thinks about what their experience has been or how they read themselves into the

Bible. The issue is what is the final authority in understanding what

God has revealed. Now, it seems to me that what you're saying is, well, it's your book anyways. I don't matter. I've got the wrong color skin.

I think most people are really find racism reprehensible. I certainly do.

And the whole idea of introducing race to this, trying to change King James from who he was clearly in history and who the stewards were and all the rest of that stuff.

Just simply to introduce race, I think most people recognize that that's a move of absolute desperation and that there is no historical foundation.

It's indefensible. If it was defensible, we'd have something more than just mere assertions. And while I've got a book over here,

I've got a book over there. There's a woodcut, this type of thing. You'd actually have a coherent understanding of what was actually going on.

And when you have to talk about Westcott and Hort and grubby Jesuit hands, this kind of thing, again, smacks me with the idea of desperation, because while the

Jesuits certainly have been an enemy of biblical faith, they're an enemy of my faith, which is why

I debate Jesuits and actually engage Jesuits in debate. But if you're going to make the assertion that Westcott and Hort were corrupted by Jesuit influences, merely making the assertion is not an argument.

What you need to do is you need to provide meaningful evidence of that. And the fact of the matter is anyone today who actually takes the time to study the issues, and may

I say, you honor the word of God by taking the time to actually make sure that what you're saying about it is true.

You dishonor it when you simply claim, it's mine, but I don't need to study it. I don't need to learn these things.

You've just got your books, but I'm right anyways. That's dishonoring to the word of God. And I just need to say that straightforwardly.

The information is available to anyone who wants it. It's published widely.

We have critical editions of the Greek New Testament. I'm holding one up right now for the camera on my side anyways.

This is the 28th edition of the Greek New Testament. The textual variations are found down here.

We're not slavishly following Westcott and Hort. In fact, anyone who knows anything about the current modern translations and the textual basis for them knows that there has been a tremendous modification of the

Westcott and Hort thesis as to its application, especially in light of the discovery of the papyri, a more balanced understanding of the role of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the major unseals in regards to papyri, and all sorts of things like this.

This is one of the major areas that I work in. The reality is that when you take away all of the rhetoric, when you take away all the accusations of changing

King James' race and Jesuits and all the rest of this stuff, the issue, again, for the serious -minded person is to come back and ask the question, if we're going to have meaningful conversations, if our communities are going to have meaningful conversations, and many people on your side don't even want to do that, to be perfectly honest with you.

Not in the GOCC. I'm thankful for that. But many of the other people who call themselves Hebrew Israelites, they don't care.

They don't care about us. They want us dead. They want us enslaved, whatever. That's just a horrific thing.

But if the serious -minded people on your side, not the hate -filled people, but the serious -minded people on your side want to have conversations, we have to find a common ground.

And that common ground is going to be found in real history, in documentable argumentation, not in the mere throwing out of assertions that cannot be then grounded in fact.

And so until we start doing that, well, let me put it this way, doing that would truly show respect for the other side.

And that's what we're trying to do, is to take this seriously. But we need to have more material presented from your side that is grounded in fact and can be examined in a meaningful fashion.

That's what we need. Okay? Okay. All right, there's my... So, the three -minute crossfire, so that's going to be one minute for each of us.

So you get to go first, and then I've got a minute, and we just go back and forth for a total of six minutes, or three times each, okay?

Okay, that's fine. What I'd like to say is, when you read the Bible, Galatians 1 and 7, it tells us, which is not of another, but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Okay, so what's going on is, these Romans began to find other...

Claimed they found something in Egypt that would go against the received text as an entry to begin to make new books when the

King James was fine. And some of the translations before then were just fine.

We were just trying to get away from the Latin evil of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, let me make this clear, okay? And see, that's why I'm sticking to this Bible, because I want brothers and sisters out there to understand,

I'm actually reading it. Colossians 2 and 8 reads, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit.

Philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiment of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.

The bottom line is the doctrine. We shouldn't go to the Bible and say, is the King James right?

That's one minute, that's one minute. The answer is absolutely yes. Come on, let's do this the way it's supposed to be done.

You can control yourself, and you can do it in one minute. I have confidence in you, so here we go.

I have confidence in you. Okay, here's my one minute, and mine will actually be in one minute. Again, what you just had was, well, people found some stuff in Egypt to try to overthrow the received text.

Be specific. Are you talking about the papyri? Have you examined the papyri? Do you know what the papyri say?

Do you know how the papyri actually end up verifying the vast majority of the New Testament text that we have and demonstrating that the transmission of that text over time was amazingly accurate?

This isn't an issue of overthrowing the quote -unquote received text. The people functioning at the time, the translation, the

King James, had a particular Greek text. If they had had access to what we have today, they would have used that information and would have used it gladly.

They did not reject this other material. Again, you're making assertions, but you need to validate those assertions with something other than mere force of statement.

Facts would be a good thing to add to it. Your turn. Okay, all I have to say is—and

I hope brothers and sisters are seeing this. These people—and it's a shame, this is what Christians do, they talk out of the

Bible. The Bible—they talk around the Bible, okay? Start focusing on what's in it.

That's the key. Because I've seen more harm than good with these new translations.

That has been a pretext for others to claim, well, there's so many different things, I might as well walk away altogether.

Is that what you want? Brothers and sisters, they're doing this as a way to homologize the

Most High's word, because they're not for the Most High. He would be in the book. We are saved through the

Bible, and we were saved through the King James before the NIV or NRSV or any other thing they're trying to bring forth now.

So that's good enough, if salvation is our key objective. We are the children of Israel, okay?

The King James Version Bible works fine for us. And prophecies is what verify its truth.

Okay, all right. One minute for me now. You say that we're just talking around the

Bible. The problem is, you can quote a Bible verse, but so far every Bible verse you've quoted had nothing to do with the topic.

You just quote from Colossians 2, 8, and 9, asserting that evidently I was somehow using human philosophy, when all

I'm doing is dealing with facts about the history of the book you claim is your own that you don't seem to know about.

It's one thing to say, well, I'm just reading from the Bible, but we need to know where the Bible came from. The reason that the

Bible is the authority, it's the Word of God, is because it is theanoustos, as Paul said. All Scripture is theanoustos.

It is God -breathed. What we need to know is what the apostles and prophets wrote, not what someone writing 1 ,600 years later thought they should have written.

That's the issue. If you really want to honor the Word of God, then you need to deal with its history and deal with where it came from.

Okay? Your turn. Okay, that's all you had, where it came from. Keep in mind that the

Bible was fine before you came. So who cares whether or not you figured out how it was compiled or questioned what was there?

See, that's the point. That's why I brought up Colossians and say one would pervert the gospel, because the ones that I've mentioned,

Westcott and Hort, they was operating, trying to bring in a new text, knowing that our people was revolting against our captivity.

And the Roman Catholic was using their scriptures, their church, as a form of control over us.

The Bible was going to set us free. And the only Bible that was there at that time was the King James Version. And that same

Bible had us come to the conclusion that we are in fact the children of Israel, which is good enough for us.

Okay? In another tongue, the most I would speak to is people. And King James authorized a translation that allowed that to happen.

Okay, well, here's the problem. You just made an assertion that Westcott and Hort did what they did to try to enslave black people.

That is so absurd, I don't even know where to start. Again, you make these statements, but then you don't substantiate them.

And I say to you, that is an absurdity. You have a four -minute closing statement. If you do not document from history that Westcott and Hort did this at purpose, then very clearly you lose the debate.

It's over at that point, because it's that kind of wild -eyed assertion that demonstrates that you cannot dialogue with people.

What do you do when you encounter Muslims on the street? They make arguments against the

King James version of the Bible, and they actually research things, and they have a Quran. Do you two just end up arguing ultimate authorities without actually dealing with the history of the

Quran or dealing with the history of the Bible? You would be in a position where you could not defend the scripture at that point.

Okay, so now you have a four -minute closing statement. Okay, I'm glad the one end of the debate is dictating who will win the debate.

Let me make it clear. I don't care about who wins or loses a debate. Let's make that clear.

I'm here to proclaim the truth according to the Most High and defend the book you are attacking the best

I can. Okay, so I could care less about who you think should win or lose.

Let me make this clear. I have statements from Westcott and Hoyt who were dealing with heretical doctrine.

They were looking to steer people down the wrong path purposely. I know you're trying to separate yourself from these two satanic

Jesuits. Okay, but you are no different than them. Okay, so you can play the other side like Democrat or Republican.

But you are doing the same thing by by bringing the King James Bible into question.

Okay, when the King James have saved many souls before the NIV was published.

Okay, so let's make this clear. If you feel I lost the debate because you went and found some books that you think are authentic, then feel what you want to feel.

But I'm coming in these scriptures and telling you that according to the prophecies, the book worked for us.

That's that's why it says Romans three. What advantage then have a Jew much every way because unto them was given the oracles of the most high, the oracles of the

Bible. So it doesn't matter. Okay, if you feel that this is not enough for you.

Eventually, you're going to fall under the prophecies also. Okay, within the King James, all of the

King James is not wrong. So you can mention what you feel it ain't right.

And I won't even go into that. And we'll still deal with what what doctrine is true. According to the most time you're trying to be a gatekeeper to be over these black churches because they're losing their youth to the truth.

The most high is releasing them in your pastors, your black pastors and your mammies can't hold them.

Okay, that's what's going on. So they've run to the gates of the nobles. They've run to Massa.

And now Massa is trying to I will beat them up, come into the house.

So if you think I'm race baiting, feel good about that or feel upset about that.

But you're the one that didn't want to discuss who were the real Jews speaking to a Hebrew Israelite.

You done? Yes. Oh, OK. All right.

Four minutes. Closing statement. First of all, refer to Westcott and Hort as satanic

Jesuits. They were Anglicans, actually. Historically, you said you had documents and then forgot to read from them or provide any references to them in any meaningful debate.

You have been disqualified by your presentation and the lack of coherence and the lack of facts just on any.

And I know I know you say you don't care about that. OK, that's fine. We have an audience and I will leave it to them as to whether they care about it, because that's the important thing.

You say the book works for us. That's called pragmatism. And many people attacked Erasmus in his production of his

Novum Instrumentum, which became part of the foundation of the King James translation itself because he corrected the

Latin. Maybe you're not aware of the fact that the one who actually originated in New Testament was very focused upon that allegedly satanic

Latin. But their argument with him was, hey, the

Latin Vulgate has worked for us for eleven hundred years. Why should you mess with it? So you're using the same argument.

That's an argument from pragmatism. And again, it won't it won't work in defending the

Bible against Islam, against modern secular critics of the

Bible, things like that. What I'm saying is your position is incapable of defending the

Bible. And I love the Bible. I defend the Bible all the time. I'm not attacking the Bible in any way, shape or form.

And I think the audience can see that. Interestingly enough, you quoted from Romans chapter three.

And I had that in my notes because, as I pointed out, the Jews rejected the

Apocrypha and yet the oracles of God were given to the Jews. So you hold to scripture that the Jews never believed and claimed to be a

Jew. But the real question is, I want to know what the oracles of God that the

Jews possessed in the days of Jesus. I want to know what that was. And the only way to do that is to study the history.

The only way to do that is not to cling to a 17th century English translation, say this is it.

Everything else is some Jesuit plot. That is irrational and it's indefensible.

It makes no sense. You and I have been made in the image of God.

You may deny that for me. I don't know. But the Bible teaches that doesn't matter what race, it doesn't matter what color.

You're made in the image of God and he's made your mind to function in a particular fashion that utilizes the laws of logic.

Which is why I can interact with a Muslim who has a completely different authority structure than I do.

As long as that Muslim is willing to reason and to utilize the laws of logic.

And so the only way we can do that is if you get past utilization of mere assertions.

Saying, well it's just my book, it works for us. Those aren't arguments. Those may be observations, they may be beliefs, but they are not arguments.

You need to learn what arguments are and need to learn how to make them. Without then turning around and saying, well you're just a

Jesuit or you're trying to use philosophy or anything else like that. You're holding a text and you're telling the world this is the ultimate authority.

Why? The Bible, that very book tells you to be ready to give a defense for the hope that's within you.

That very book says, come let us reason together. So if we do that, it requires certain things of us.

Well, it's time for the next topic, and I'm the one that's supposed to be going on that, aren't

I? Okay, but let me put this out there. No, wait a minute. That defense should be in the Bible, not philosophy. Wait a minute.

That defense should be in the Bible. But go on, you got eight minutes, right? Okay, so the next topic, just affirming this, is in regards to the

Lord's Day, right? What we call the Sabbath. Right, okay, alright, eight minutes.

And here we go. There we go. Alright, the issue is in regards to the assertion, obviously, that has been made that Sunday worship comes from paganism.

My response to that is to point out that Christians believe that we gather together on the

Lord's Day. And when my church gathers on Sunday to proclaim the

Word of God and to partake of the ordinances, and to sing, and to pray, and to fellowship together as the body of Christ, we do so on a day we call the

Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week. Traditionally, it's been understood that this is connected to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which takes place on that first day.

But the New Testament doesn't make that specific claim. What the New Testament does tell us is that in Revelation 1, verse 10, that the

Apostle John, I was in the spirit on the Kuriakei Haimera. I was in the spirit on the

Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet. This is Revelation, by the way, it's singular,

Revelation 1, 10. And so we ask the question, what is the

Lord's Day? This is a designation that has not been used in the past, and yet John is in the spirit on that particular day.

And we have the same form of Kuriakei used over in 1 Corinthians in regards to the

Lord's Supper. And so it evidently is some kind of a identification that is connected to the authority of Jesus Christ, and it sets that supper apart as special for the

Christian people. And hence, this day is set apart as special for the

Christian people as well. And so we're also told in Colossians chapter 2, beginning of verse 16,

Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a

Sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

This comes right after the section that has demonstrated Jesus Christ is creator of all things, and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him.

And because of that, there is this newness, this fulfillment in Jesus Christ that means that we are not to be judged in regards to food or drink, festival, new moon, or Sabbath day.

Now, this understanding then, we ask ourselves the question, well, when did the

Christians gather together? Well, when Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, they were to lay aside their giving, for example, for the relief of the poor in Jerusalem on that first day when they were gathering together.

So the question comes up, well, does history shed any light on when Christians gathered together?

And the reality is it does. There are two extremely early references within literally decades of, well, almost contemporaneous with the writing of the

Book of Revelation. You have the Didache 14 .1, which

I have right here, which likewise uses this terminology. And in the

Didache, we have these words, On the Lord's own day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.

And so clearly, this is the worship time of the early church, and it's on the Lord's own day, using that same terminology.

And then what Ignatius wrote to the Magnesians in section 9 of his letter to the

Magnesians, If then those who had lived in antiquated practices came to newness of hope, listen, no longer keeping the

Sabbath, but living in accordance with the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through him and his death.

So that's where you get one of the first connections between the resurrection and the celebration of the

Christian people on that first day of the week. And so, is there a biblical command that you can just go to that says, this is the day you're to worship?

No, there isn't. Instead, what we see is that we're not to be judged in regards to new moon,

Sabbath, festival days, and that we are the early church gathered together.

And of course, by the end of the second century, this isn't even a question any longer. It's very clearly established by that point. But here's the point.

There was no ultimate authority in those days that could force conformity upon all the

Christian people in regards to this subject. And so the idea that Rome forces upon people is absurd.

There was no Rome in the sense of a Roman Catholic church to do so. Well, but then the assertion is made, oh, well, they just borrowed it from paganism.

Well, wait a minute. This is where the problem is. So much information exists out there that violates the basic laws of logic and historiography.

One of them is, well, if there's anything similar in one religion to another religion, they must have borrowed from each other.

That, of course, is absurd. If we're going to make that argument, if the argument is going to be made today that there was a purposeful borrowing of pagan religions, then

A, you must demonstrate that the pagan religions did what you claim they did from original sources.

B, that the Christians were in contact with that particular pagan religion at the time that they adopted this practice.

And C, that they then purposefully borrowed this because they would find some advantage in it.

But there's a major problem from a historical perspective here. And that is that we know that by the end of the second century, the

Lord's Day is specifically Sunday. And it seems to be all the way back in the book of Revelation. What's going on during that time, historically?

The Christian church is under tremendous persecution. In fact, the worst persecution takes place between 250 and 313.

And so you have pagans killing Christians because Christians will not give in to paganism.

And you're actually going to tell me that the people who are willing to die for their faith in Jesus Christ, willing to die for their beliefs, which the pagans find offensive, are the same people that were then looking to borrow from the pagans?

Such a thing as the very day upon which they would celebrate the Lord's Supper?

Baptism? The preaching of the Word of God? That they were looking to borrow from the pagans?

And remember, it's paganism that was dying out. It's Christianity that was growing.

Why would the religion that's growing and seeing success, mainly because of the persecution, why would that religion then borrow from the dying religion and incorporate parts of it into itself?

Now, post -Constantinian Christianity, different situation. Now, once it becomes established, well, obviously that's

Theodosius in 380, but once you have formalism, once you have nominalism, then we can start talking about certain things that Rome eventually adopted.

But remember, there's a vast difference between Christianity and Romanism, and that is certainly something that I have asserted over and over and over again, and I've debated that subject many, many times as well.

We can get into that if we need to. So there's the foundation. There's the reason that we claim to have the freedom to meet on the

Lord's Day, and I'll be interested in the historical basis of the argument that will be forthcoming.

All right, eight minutes. Eight minutes now. And it's all yours.

Okay, I'm glad you brought that up about judge no man. That's total deception through Christian dogma and theology.

It's disingenuous. Now, why is it disingenuous? In Colossians it tells us, let no man judge you according to new moons,

Sabbath, holy days, whatever the case might be. These were holy days written of in the

Old Testament. It wasn't speaking of Christmas, Sunday worship, because using that scripture, they're not rightly dividing the word of truth in its proper context, and you can't use that because these were holy days.

And what Paul and the brethren was teaching at this time, that we're going to do it under Christ, and you can't judge us if we're not doing it like it was under Moses with the sacrifice.

Christ is our sacrifice. Let me click. So Christmas wasn't even a part of their thoughts when he says, let no man judge you.

OK, the Israelites were not judging pagans for being pagans. All right.

Now, let me let me go here to Genesis 2, 1 and 3 real quick.

So we can give you the Lord's Day, according to the Bible. Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them in this.

And on the seventh day ended his work, which he had made. And he rested on the seventh day from all his work, which he had made.

And the Most High blessed the seventh day and sanctified him. Why am I going here? Because the

Most High cleansed that day before there was any such man as Moses. So when modern day theology try to switch off the first day for the seventh day because of Moses.

Well, guess what? The Sabbath was instilled from the beginning. It was solidified as a holy day from the beginning.

OK, now let me let me go on more. I'm going to Exodus. I'm going to the New Testament to Exodus 20 and eight.

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The Most High put that there because he knew eventually his people would go into captivity and forget why the

Gentiles would teach them. They will be scattered amongst the Gentiles and serve their gods in their pagan days.

That's why Jeremiah, the 10th chapter, 10th chapter reads this. Hear you the word which the

Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel. Thus saith the Lord, learn not the way of the heathen.

That's Gentiles. And be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the heathen are dismayed at them.

For the customs of the people are vain, for one cut of a tree out of the forest and the work of the work of the hands of the workmen with the axe.

They deck it with silver and with gold. Don't they sound like the Christmas tree to you? Pagan Babylonian Jeremiah 10 is your

Christmas tree, which is which is linked to Babylon sun worship. So on Sundays, your worship in the sun, not the

S .O .N., the S .U .N. OK, Daniel seven and twenty five tells us that they would think the change times and laws, what times and laws, the times concerning the

Bible and the laws on when we should reverence and honor the Most High.

Nowhere in the Bible did the Most High switch the seventh day to the first day.

That's why others like Romans go out of the Bible to try to confirm something that's not in it.

Gathering money on the first day of the week is not the Sabbath. They did it on the first day of the week because they couldn't do it on the

Sabbath. Now, when you go to Matthew five and 17, Christ's own words himself.

What did you what did you say? What did Christ say when it came to his law?

Because people try to use Christ against the father. OK, this is what it reads in Matthew five and 17.

Think not that I've come to destroy the law or the prophets. That's the Old Testament.

That's including the Sabbath. I've come not to destroy. Let me read it.

Think not that I've come to destroy the law or the prophets. I'm not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law to all be fulfilled.

Whosoever there shall should break one of these least commandments. And guess what? The Sabbath is one of those least and shall teach men like this guy's doing.

So he shall be called the least in the kingdom. And that's who we're dealing with here. Someone that's teaching you to be least.

All right. In the kingdom of heaven, against the commands of the Lord and Savior, he claimed he serves.

OK. Sin is a transgression of the law. Grace cover you when you can't follow the law.

You can't live on the grace and call that a law. That's sin. And that's why the churches are being destroyed.

That's why they've been toppled. Because there is no law. The Sabbath is a sign between the most top and his creation.

When he created us, he hollowed that Sabbath day. He said being made in the image of the most time.

But guess what? Who was Adam? And he honored that day. That was hollowed from the beginning.

Let's make this clear. You can worship any day you want. And I'm speaking of pagans and Gentiles because you've always done that.

But the most high command everywhere, everyone, everywhere now to repent because the kingdom is at hand.

Sunday is linked to ancient Babylon, the worship of a son. The Pope worship that Babylonian witchcraft and evil.

And now they're trying to push it on us. And you know what? We're not having it.

OK. We're not having it. One moment. Is that your phone there?

What is that your phone? No. OK. One moment here.

Something is going on wrong here. One moment. We can still hear you just fine. OK. I'm sorry about that.

The bottom line, according to the Bible, there's no place that verify and justify

Sunday worship, period. And since you want to talk about Ignatius from Antioch, I've got a picture of him, too.

He so happened to be. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. OK. Since you want to talk about Antiochians from Antioch, I want to throw him up there, too.

He's black also. OK. And again, there's other records that prove that it wasn't the

Lord's day in Greek. It was the Lord's way. I happen to live around the Greeks for a few years and they helped me out by giving me a call and showing that there was an argument against that Lord's Day madness that are that are used by Jesuits.

OK, so let's make this clear. Who cares what was said after the

Bible? The Bible says clearly the Lord's Day is the Sabbath. OK.

All right. Let me see here. Five minute rebuttal.

OK. All right. Well, we've gotten a lot of bluster there toward the end.

We had Ignatius. There's a picture of Ignatius. Really? They didn't have pictures back then.

And he was supposed to be black. Actually, he was from Antioch. And well, but anyway.

But then we're told immediately after that that this doesn't matter, that we shouldn't be going into history.

But then we use it. And then my opponent knows some Greek folks who argue that there is it may not be day.

It might be way. This is, again, on any meaningful debate level that that statement would bring about disqualification.

I realize, sir, that you probably never studied debate or not familiar with the means of exchange.

But that is that is utilizing a source in an improper fashion. What I would invite you to do is if you want a discussion of the issue of what kuriake means and the difference between way or day, whether Hemera is used with it or not, then

I would highly recommend to you a book called From Sabbath to Lord's Day. Dr. Richard Balcom, a well -known

New Testament scholar, has written an extensive portion of this specifically on that particular topic.

And so I'm going to ask you when you come back, if you are going to quote anonymous Greek people from the

Internet, then I'm going to ask you, have you read Richard Balcom on Kuriake Hemera?

If you've not, why not? If you have, then rebut him. Maybe the folks on Skype will have enough time to get back to you on that particular question.

Then for some reason, the issue of Christmas came up and was said,

Jeremiah 10 was quoted. Now, this is this is an amazing thing. I'm going to have to ask you another question. And I'd like you to answer during your rebuttal period.

I really haven't been able to figure this out. I would think that this would be something that the Hebrew Israelites would be all over.

And here's what I mean. Have you ever read Roger Beckwith's excellent work on the

Courses of the Priests? Because he's gone into history and he's demonstrated, because we know about John the

Baptist's father, and we know what family he was of, and we can determine when he would have been serving in the temple.

Because we still have those records. After AD 70, we can't. But up till then, we still knew.

And when you put it all together, what's fascinating, because we know the six -month difference between John the Baptist and Jesus, it places the birth of Jesus in late

December, early January. And of course, there's two different dates that have been popular in history. Not just December 25th, but even more popular is

January 6th, which is still the traditional

Christmas in Eastern Orthodoxy to this day. And there's 12 days between, which is where the 12 days of Christmas is.

Now, first of all, Christmas is not commanded within Christianity. But it is,

I'm sorry, absurd to try to make a connection between the idols mentioned in Jeremiah 10 and the idea that modern

Christians are bowing down before something and worshipping it. I do not worship a tree.

They were worshipping an idol in Jeremiah 10. It is abusive.

I've seen Christians use this, and I've told them the same thing. It is abusive to Jeremiah to misuse him in that way, and it reduces the reality of the idol worship that they were doing.

Now, if there's anybody out there that worships a Christmas tree, stop it! It's wrong. That's idolatry. But that's obviously not what

Christians are doing. And if you're going to make the assertion, it was said, Sunday is linked to Babylon. Prove it!

Prove it! Give me some facts. Give me some specific citations from Babylonian sources, and then demonstrate that those

Babylonian sources are contemporaneous with the early Christians, and that they borrowed from it. If you're going to make the assertion, then bear the burden of proof.

Otherwise, you're just simply moving your mouth and expelling air. It doesn't have any meaning.

And so I ask you once again, you make the assertion, provide documentation that makes it a meaningful statement.

Otherwise, you're just speaking to your own audience, and you're not trying to engage in any type of meaningful discussion whatsoever.

So, let's hear some of the answers to the questions that I just asked in your four -minute period.

Now, you went over, didn't you? No, I did not. I was 14 seconds short. Okay. Are you ready to put the timer at?

I got the timer. Okay. The source I got, let me just deal with that real quick and get right back into the

Bible. The 19th century theologian John Kiddo understood that neither the context of the

Greek required adding the word dead. Thus, he translated a highly relevant part of it correctly as follows.

Okay. Now, in the Deuteronomy, Ignatius and the

Sabbath, it was translated to the effect of the sentence. Listen to this clearly. The word is to be understood.

The effect of the sentence is a one of substantive to which it derives.

But the effect so far from being remedy is rigid, still more glaring by the introduction.

The passage does not refer to at all the Lord's Day.

It cannot be regarded as according to any positive evidence in the early use of the Lord's Day. Now, that's the outside source.

So you got that. You can go look that up in the Bible, which is the real source. There's no way, nowhere, anywhere does it say first day of the week is the

Lord's Day. Now, let me make this clear. Let me read this real quick. Matthew 12 and 12. All right.

I'm going to go through a few of them real quick. Matthew 12 and 12 reads this.

OK. Now, you're shy.

Who's Christ said? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the

Sabbath days. He showed how to execute and being the priest over the

Sabbath days and how to operate in grace on them. He never said deal with Sunday.

Now, let's get Luke four and 16. This is Christ. And he came to Nazareth where he had

Nazareth, where he had been taught up, where he was brought up.

And as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read.

Now, some people say, well, because Christ was crucified and rose on the third day. Hey, let's do it on Sunday.

Right. Let's see what the disciples were doing after Christ was resurrected. Two and 42 reads.

And they continue speaking of the disciples steadfastly in the apostles doctrine, fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

Right. I hope you follow me. Right. I'm going to read it again.

And they continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.

So they continue in the apostles doctrine. So let's see what that is. The apostles doctrine.

Let's go to Acts 13 and 14. All right. Let me show you the apostles doctrine.

What are they teaching here? But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch. Remember, you mentioned

Antioch and Pisidia and went into the synagogue on the

Sabbath day. So even during the time after Christ, they were worshiping on the

Sabbath, not Sunday at Antioch. Now, there's more. Acts 13, 42.

Let me go at 13 and 42. And when the Jews were going out of the synagogue and the

Gentiles saw that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. So even the

Gentiles were learning on a Sabbath. OK, I don't know when that switch, maybe after we fell in the

Romans, got in charge. The sun worship was S .U .N. Now. Now, when the congregation was broken up, many of the

Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of the most high

God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

The whole city was worshiping on a Sabbath after Christ was resurrected. OK, now

I have the first of the one minutes in the in the crossfire starting now.

All of those texts are very interesting, but they're irrelevant to the point that I made.

No one is arguing that during Jesus' ministry that there was anything regarding the

Lord's Day. And clearly in the early chapters of Acts, you're going to have people in Judea.

That's going to make perfect sense. And if you're going to want to speak to the Jews and preach in the synagogue, you're not going to go there on Tuesday.

You're going to go there on the Sabbath. So here's my question. Question number one that I hope you'll answer.

Had you ever read the quote you had from Kittel that you just gave? Had you ever read it before today?

Because I had a hard time understanding it because it did not seem that you understood it.

And if you if you have read it, then please tell me, how did he deal with the term sabotizers in the same sentence?

I'm dealing with the Bible. That's it?

Yeah. Okay, then I'll go back to mine. Clear one minute.

Here's the problem. That's a cop out. You raised the point. You made it a point of your argument.

And you just ran from answering a simple question about a citation that was clearly provided to you by someone else that you'd never seen.

You've never read its context. You don't know if it's accurate. And you don't know, you can't answer the question as to how they interpreted the term sabotizer in the same section.

That is dishonest, sir. I call you on that. I ask you to repent of that.

That would again cause you to be disqualified in any moderated debate.

You do not abuse scholarly information in that fashion.

And so there's my one minute, and I would like to hear how you respond to that. My response is, you asked for a source and I gave it.

The bottom line is, you seem more bent out of shape with sources than the Bible itself. Remember the

Sabbath and keep it holy. And stop this nonsense with the first day of the week. Now, let me make this clear.

Also, OK, when it says of the Lord's Day in the book of Revelations, the same

John, the revelator, the Lord's Day is a Sabbath because there's no place in the Bible that says it's anything else or any other day.

We make that clear also. OK, so I understand you being a

Gentile, still trying to follow Gentile ways. But when Christ comes back, you're going to get yourself in order.

There will be no first day of the week worship according to Scriptures. When you read Isaiah, the 60th chapter on through, the 66th chapter, the 23rd verse, in the kingdom, guess what?

Even the Gentiles are going to be worshiping on the Sabbath in the kingdom. Read it sometimes. Look at that source.

OK, last one minute here. First of all, you just made the assertion that kurikehimera means Sabbath.

What is your source? Prove it. Why not say Sabbath? Why didn't John say, I was in the

Spirit on the Sabbath day? It would have been much easier to say. It would have been much clearer. And by the way, it's the book of Revelation, not

Revelations. Again, all we have here now, it almost sounded like threats there toward the end.

And given what I've heard from other folks, I really wonder what you were meaning there. When he comes back, you're going to get this straight and so on and so forth.

Yeah, you know, someday we're all going to know. But right now, the only way for us to honor each other and the listening audience is to provide meaningful, documented, organized, logical argumentation.

Not mere assertions. That's the only way right now until the end comes for us to really be able to do this in a way that honors

God's truth. You've got one last minute. Isaiah 66 and 23, and it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one

Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, say of the

Lord. Future prophecy kingdom. Rehearse the righteous act. Do it now.

OK, and I'm not threatening. OK, if you don't serve, if you don't follow the true

God, you're not going to make it to the other side anyway. Leave the paganism. OK, four minute closing.

It's a four minute, four minute closing statement. I go first. Leave the paganism.

Well, a debate is meant to be able to allow us to reason as image bearers of God with one another to demonstrate who is the one holding the paganism.

And so far in each segment, we've seen a lot of assertion, a lot of assumption and circular reasoning, but not much more than that.

Especially when it came to the obvious fact of, well, here's a quote. I'll use it. Then when

I ask you, OK, how do you deal with this? How does it deal with sabotizers? Do you know the context? Ever seen this before?

I'm only going to deal with the Bible. That is dissembling. That is just dishonest. Let me let me summarize this particular issue.

The early Christians were not borrowing from paganism. No evidence has been given that there is any connection between the

Christians adopting the first day of the week in regards to the resurrection of Christ as the

Kuriakei Hemera and Babylonian mystery worship. Nothing. We've had it asserted multiple times.

But to any rational person, not a shred of meaningful historical evidence or argumentation has been given.

Same with regards to Christmas. Now, what needs to be understood is that the book of Hebrews addresses the issue of the fulfillment of the

Sabbath and the fact that we've entered into our Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ. And so you have to ask yourself a question.

Did the writer of the Hebrews understand Isaiah 66 the way that Elder Shihar does?

And I would say to you, no, they did not. Now, unfortunately, when you have a religious system that is based upon the exercise of authority, the

Bible generally becomes just a book that is used as a weapon. It's actual meaning, it's history, it's background, it's context.

It's not relevant whether you're drawing your beliefs from it. You just use it to back up your authority over other people.

And that's what I'm hearing here, is we have authority over you. And this is just the way it's going to be.

And every authoritative group has functioned the same way, and they all struggle in the same way to answer direct questions about the argumentation they're presenting.

Especially when their beliefs do not actually derive from Scripture, but are forced upon the

Scripture. Which is why nobody until recent years had ever dreamed up the ideas that are being presented to us.

Not in this particular subject, but I mean the whole concept of Hebrew -Israelism and things along those lines.

And you have to engage in all the conspiracy theories and whitewashing history and all the rest of that kind of stuff. That's what happens when you have a system that really cannot survive meaningful cross -examination and cannot provide a meaningful foundation for its assertions.

Basically what you end up with is an echo chamber. Where one guy says, yeah that's true, and another guy says, yeah that's true, it just echoes back and forth.

And you think that lots of people are saying that, but actually it's just because you're only saying it in your small little echo chamber.

And that doesn't make exegesis, that doesn't mean that you're actually dealing honestly with Revelation chapter 1 verse 10.

It doesn't mean you're dealing honestly with the development then over time actually providing foundations for your assertions.

It just means that a lot of other people who believe like you are saying the same things. That isn't how you establish truth.

And it's indefensible when you try to take that kind of system out into the world against all those other systems out there that have their own books and so on and so forth.

So, there we go. And so, four minute closing statement for you as well.

Ready? Yes. Okay, there you go. First John 2 and 4, New Testament, after Christ was already resurrected.

In heaven now. John 2 and 4. He that sayeth I know him, if you say you know

Christ, Jesus you call him, and keepeth not his commandments, not just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

He that sayeth I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar.

And the truth is not in him. And you know what? The truth is not in James White.

First John 3 and 4. Read. Whosoever committeth sin, what is sin?

Transgresseth also the law. For sin is the transgression of the law.

You wonder why church is going to hell and back? And the youth is leaving the church?

There is no law. So, when you start claiming that you can break a law and it's okay through grace, get ready for homosexuals to run your church.

Okay? Get ready for sin to abound and Solomon Grimoire to run rabid.

Okay? The bottom line is the Romans did this on purpose to destroy the church so that we can leave the

Bible at the very end. So that we can leave it. They wanted us out of it.

The law is the way back. This is how we fell as a people. And guess what? The law is our rise.

And this is what they fear. And this is why they pull out the Jesuits in moans to come on our pages.

To try to act like you're not sent. The law stands.

And guess what? You lose. Okay? Because you can't say that you're down with the most high

God according to his Bible and break his long purpose and say you cover through grace when the books will be open on the day of judgment.

There must be some law. So if you wonder why your churches are going to hell, because the

Romans are running it and you got guys like this confirming books that are leading us down the wrong path.

Stick with your King James. Stick with your commandments in Israel. Come back to the most high and Christ.

Get baptized in the name of the father, son, and the Holy Spirit and receive the gift so that we can receive the promise of sons.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yeah. Those are my papas. Okay? You can repeat that too,

James White. Those are my people. So you're not going to come as a

Gentile, come lately and tell us we shouldn't follow that when the Lord gave us a Sabbath and Gentiles were dealing with Sundays.

I don't need no more time. Okay. Let's get to the next point. Let's do that.

Yeah. All right. Eight minutes. And here we go.

In the book of Revelation chapter five, we have a vision of what takes place in heaven.

And they sang a new song saying worthy of you to take the book and to break its seals. For you were slain and purchased for God with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priest to our God and they will reign upon the earth. The central truth of the

Bible, the Bible as a whole, not just taking portions of it, but the Bible as a whole is the revelation that the triune

God is glorifying himself and the salvation of a particular people. And those people are derived from every tribe, tongue, people and nation.

It is the negation of the work of Jesus Christ. It is the negation of the New Testament to ever say anyone that those people are determined on the basis of skin color, genetics or anything else.

The only basis upon which God's elect are chosen is God's free grace and nothing else.

And any other teaching is a repudiation. It's blasphemous and will be judged by God. So here in heaven, every tribe and tongue and people and nation, every one of them, not just Jews out of them, but every single one of those people,

God has his elect people amongst them. That is why when

Jesus commanded his disciples to go forth, he did so with these words. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, not take

Jews out of nations, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.

And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Now, very clearly, there is a distinction between what

Jesus said in Matthew chapter 15 during his ministry and now post resurrection, he sends all authorities given to him in heaven and earth and he sends his disciples out to do what?

To look for ethnic Jews? No. He sends them out into all the nations, commanding them to disciple all the nations.

And that's exactly what the Christians did. So, for example, in Acts chapter 13, when the

Jews rejected the message in the synagogue, what did

Paul and the rest do? Did they go, oh, well that's it, we've found all the Jews and some have believed, some objected, so we're not going to talk to you

Gentiles. No. They didn't talk about Edomites, they didn't treat people on some racial basis.

That is false teaching, it's cultic. Very clearly, it's to be repudiated by any person who follows the scriptures.

Instead, in Acts chapter 13, when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing. Who heard this?

The Gentiles. There are specific words for God -fearers, there are specific words for proselytes. This is the word for Gentiles, non -Jews.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing, glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as been appointed to eternal life believed.

And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region, but the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas and drove them out of their district.

See the distinction? The Gentiles receive, the Jews reject.

Very clear meaning of the text. There really isn't any way to confuse it unless you have traditions that you believe more than the

Bible itself. And that's what then results in Acts chapter 15 and the whole council meeting.

And what's it about? God's saving the Gentiles, not just the Jews. But there are some Jews that say, oh no, you've got to come do and you've got to be a part of the old covenant people first.

And what does the Bible say? No, no, no, no. You do not have to be a

Jew to be saved. That's what Acts chapter 15 is all about. It is a negation of the gospel to say anything else.

And then Paul, I just don't know how you can say it any clearer than this. And so if you want to hear what the

Bible says, listen to the word of the Lord. Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, not the northern tribes, the

Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by the so -called circumcision, that's the

Jews against the Gentile world. No way of disputing that.

That's a given, which is performed in the flesh by human hands.

Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers of the covenants of promise, having no hope without God in the world.

But now in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Sounds like Revelation chapter 5 there. For he himself is our peace who made both groups into one.

You divide that, you don't believe the Bible. Stop pretending you do. Who brought both, made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, relevant to the last topic, so that in himself he might make the two into one new man.

That is the church of Jesus Christ. One man, Jew and Gentile, bond and free.

One, there is no race in Christ Jesus. Never has been, never will be.

One man, thus establishing Irenae, peace, shalom, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

And then we have a citation of an Old Testament prophecy, and he came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near.

For through him we both have our access in one spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of apostles and prophets,

Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. That is why, that is why the

Apostle Paul can then say in the book of Galatians chapter 3, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

For all of you who are baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither

Jew nor Greek. There is neither bond nor slave man. There is neither male nor female.

You are all one in Christ Jesus, and if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

My opponent said, they're my papas. They're mine, sir, according to the testimony of the

Christian scriptures. According to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to any person of any color, of any nation that will believe in Jesus Christ and trust him as Lord and Savior, they become the seed of Abraham.

That was the fulfillment of Genesis chapter 12. That's the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that is the only thing that will bring true peace to this world, is the proclamation of that message and the establishment of that peace in Jesus Christ.

Eight minutes, sir. It's all yours. Okay, eight minutes. Okay, now the topic at hand, in case you didn't get this, brothers and sisters, and you are out there, and even if you're

Christians, and the Israelites, that, you know, my brothers, you know, everything is good.

When you go to the Bible, like I'm about to go to, because the topic of discussion is, that the

Israelites and Gentiles will be saved equally. Let's make this clear. That's nonsense.

How do we know that's nonsense? If it's to everyone, it's not a promise. Okay? Are we saying that Gentiles will not be saved?

Of course they'll be saved. But we're talking about an Israelite kingdom here. All four kingdoms have ruled according to the book of Daniel, and the

Israelite kingdom under Christ is next. That's what's going on with the depopulation program.

That's why they're doing Jacob's Trouble, because they're trying to eradicate where Christ says, if he didn't cut their time short in Matthew 24, that no flesh would be saved.

That's why they're doing it. They know the Roman Empire is done. Now, let's go into this

Gentile thing real quick. Real quick. Breaking down a middle wall petition.

Let me hit that first. People don't realize that middle wall petition is not talking about a middle wall petition between Israelites and Gentiles.

Okay? Let's make it clear. There was a split in 721 between the northern and southern kingdom after the sin of Solomon, and the 10 tribes were dispersed in 721

B .C. And a lot of them went into the Americas and was conquered by the Romans and put in Roman Catholic churches, like the

Belico Taino Indians, like the North American Indians, like all of them. While we were still in Judea, Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

Okay. Now, the prophecy to break down that middle wall of petition is because of that curse in Deuteronomy, 28 and 64, that says

Israel would be scattered throughout the four corners of the earth. When Israel was scattered, what happened?

Hosea 8. Let me read it. Israel is swallowed up. Now, shall they be among the

Gentiles as a vessel wherein there is no pleasure? So if you are among the

Gentiles losing your nationality and understanding, you're learning the ways of the Gentiles. Right.

Hosea 9. In 17 reads, my God will cast them away because they did not hearken unto them.

That's why we went into slavery, brothers and sisters. We didn't listen. Now they're trying to keep us under the same law that led to our fault.

The same lawlessness that led to our fault in the churches.

They want to keep us in it. Right. My God will cast them away because they did not hearken unto him and they shall be wanderers among the nations.

So we became wanderers. How do you think Jewish people were able to get the land in 1948?

It must have been vacated. Right. Rome sack us. And then the

Romans under the club of Rome and the Jewish Zionists who eat of might get the land. Why was the land vacated in the first place?

We are the people. Now, while we were under captivity, we learned the ways of the

Gentiles. We began to believe we were Gentiles. We didn't know any better. Right. So when you read

Ephesians to it now, let me read it in this proper context. Ephesians 2 and 9.

Not a word. Let's imagine both. But we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which

God had before ordained. If it's before ordained, it means this is a promise from the

Old Testament, folks, that we should walk in them.

Wherefore, remember that you being in times past Gentiles in the flesh.

Someone is a Gentile. Can't switch to someone else. So the only people who could be in times past Gentiles in the flesh were

Israelites who was scattered amongst the Gentiles. Predominantly, the 10 tribes who are called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands.

So the Jews of Judea were calling our own brothers uncircumcised because they were following paganism and idolatry.

That is that at that time, at that time, they were Gentiles. You were without Christ being aliens from the

Commonwealth of Israel. We were alienated. You can't be alienated from something you were never a part of.

And strangers from the covenants of promise have no hope and without God in the world.

That's what made us Gentiles, because after the kingdom was split, we had no hope.

We needed Christ. Therefore, Christ said in Matthew 15 and 24. I was not sent, but into the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10, 5 and 6. These 10 Jesus sent forth saying, go not into the way of the

Gentiles, into any of the Samaritans, into ye not. That's where the imposters were. But I rather you go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And when I read Matthew 18 and 11, it says the son of man come to save which who was lost. What people was lost, the people who lost their identity in the

Old Testament. OK, let's make this clear. When I go into the

NIV. That scripture is not even there. They don't even care who the most high sent

Christ to save. Are we saying Gentiles will not be saved? No, we're not saying that. But there is a pecking order, like Paul said to the

Jews first and then the Gentiles. And when the Gentiles come in, you better not boast against the natural branches.

You will say that the branches was cut off so that I might be grafted in. Oh, you thought it was about you?

Be not high minded, but fear. Like it says in Romans, the 11th chapter, if the most high spirit, not the natural branches, take heed, lest he spare not also you.

So you have stipulations to Gentiles. We broke the law and look what happened to us.

Now you try to boast and say it doesn't matter when you're standing and getting salvation through our word.

Now, there's more. Let's go into what's going to happen to the Gentiles, according to the

Bible. Let me read Isaiah 14 and one. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You follow Christ. You're going to be OK. All right. But I had to set something straight.

This guy, you know, I know you're not ready to find the word of truth. He tried

Isaiah 14 and one is for the Gentiles. For the

Lord will have mercy on Jacob and will yet choose

Israel and set them in their own land, not the

U .N. And the strangers shall be joined with them.

So you're coming in and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob and the people shall take them and bring them to their place.

And the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the

Lord for servants and handmaids. We worked for you on the

Christ. You will work for us. Not say it because you are the gathering of Christ's church.

Thus saith the Lord. If you would do like Cornelius, Cornelius paid homage and he understood he had to fall under the power of Peter, whom the church was established.

OK, which leads us to Amos, the ninth chapter. Let me go here real quick.

Amos nine reads nine and eleven. And that day will

I raise up the tabernacle of David that was fallen and close up the breaches thereof. OK, possess the remnant of Edom and all the heathen that are called by my name.

So the heathen can be called by the most highest name by the truth of Christ. OK, your time is up.

Thank you. All right. Five minute rebuttal. What I want to do is I want to get into the text here because what we just had was a gross mishandling of Ephesians chapter two.

And this is the key issue. I hope you heard it because what you're hearing is, well, we'll throw this out. We'll throw that out.

I'll throw in these assertions. That's not exegesis. What was said about what allegedly

Ephesians chapter two is talking about is indefensible from the original text itself. Absolutely indefensible.

Notice what was said. He started in verse nine. And, you know, would throw some things in that determined his understanding.

Notice it says in verse. Well, he says, first of all, which God prepared beforehand. So we walk in them.

He said, well, that term has to mean that this is some type of fulfillment of prophecy.

Where did he give you any evidence of that? For example, he said, you cannot be alienated from something you were never part of. Give me evidence of that.

Show me. Is there something in the word that means that? Do you know what the Greek word is? Does it have that meaning?

You say it, but where'd you get it? What's your basis? What's the precept? Where's the proof? It's just thrown out there like I have the authority to tell you these things because I am me.

That's not how you do debates. That's how you lose debates. OK, so back to Ephesians chapter two.

Therefore, remember that you, the Gentiles in the flesh, how much clearer can you be?

Who is Paul writing to? He's writing the church at Ephesus. What is the

Ephesus? What's Ephesus filled with? Jews or Gentiles? Pretty much 99 percent

Gentiles. OK, not Jewish people. And so he's writing to a predominantly

Gentile church. And he's saying, remember that formerly you taught ethne and sarke.

You can't get any clearer than that. Gentiles in the flesh. How in the world do you get the northern kingdom out of this?

That is eisegesis to the max. Show me where anyone in Ephesus would have interpreted it this way.

Give me some basis. Give me something in the text. Don't just simply say, well, this is how

I understand it. You've got to derive it from the text. How would the people in Ephesus have understood, taught ethne and sarke?

And it's not the way it was just presented to you. Who are called uncircumcision by the so -called circumcision.

Who did the Jews in the days of Paul call the uncircumcision? It wasn't the northern tribes.

I can assure you of that. That was irrelevant. That was a complete canard. That is how you overthrow the clear teaching of the text.

In the context in which the book was written. In the days it was written. To do serious eisegesis, you need to look at who the author is and what his background intention would be.

You need to look at who the audience was and how they would have understood his words. You need to look at the language.

When you put all that together, there's a reason why the Christian church, not Jesuits or Roman, all the rest of this insanity that keeps getting thrown in here because there's no meaningful argument to be given.

But the Christian church has understood what this text is talking about is the fact that the mystery hidden from ages past, which

Paul's going to get to in Ephesians chapter 3, is that it's always been God's intention.

You can see it back in Genesis 12. You can see the promise. It's all there. But it was a mystery hidden in its fullness until the revelation of Jesus Christ that it was

God's intention to redeem a particular people in Christ Jesus. And that particular people, that one man, made one man by the work of Jesus Christ is made up of Jews and Gentiles.

Jews and Gentiles, which is why the Gentiles are not to boast against the ethnic

Jews, Romans chapter 11. There is nothing here about slave ships and the 1700s or anything else.

These words made perfect sense when Paul wrote them to the people to whom he wrote them.

If they couldn't be understood for another 1700 years, they were gobbledygook. Every cultic group does this to the

Bible. Tries to change its context into something other than it would have been to the people of that day.

That's the very essence. That's the very sign of the abuse of Scripture is when you make it say something that the original author and the original audience could never have come up with on their own.

And so Ephesians 2 stands, hence everything else I read, stands. One man,

Jews and Gentiles together in the gospel, in Christ Jesus, perfect equality.

That's the teaching of Scripture. Four minutes,

I'm sorry, five minutes. Five minutes. Let me read this real quick. First Corinthians 12 and 2, when

I said that Israelites were scattered, Hosea 8 and 8, Hosea 9 and 17. Here's another example how

Israelites were called uncircumcised by their own brethren. Hosea, I mean, first Corinthians 12 and 2.

Now, let me start at the first verse. No, brethren, no concern in spiritual gifts, brethren.

I would not have you ignorant. Now, there's the same Corinthians where he says that all of our fathers were under a cloud.

That only happened coming out of Egypt. You know that you were

Gentiles carried away onto these dumb idols, even as you were led.

So our people who are Israelites were called Gentiles, too. The perfect example would be if I'm calling myself an

African -American. My most high God didn't name no people African -American.

These names were placed on us by our captors. So that would be a Gentile. If I celebrate

Christmas Sunday worship, that's all pagan. That would make me a Gentile to a Jew that's following the law.

Now, let me read this in Romans 9 and 1. This is Paul. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not.

My conscience also bear me witness in the Holy Ghost. That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

For my for I wish that myself were cursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen.

According to the flesh, who are Israelites? In case you didn't know that Israelites were in the

Bible. To whom pertain of the adoption pertain means belong to the adoption is because we broke the law.

Christ had to come to adopt us back to save them, which were under the law. And the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law.

Now, this is a New Testament now. And the services of God and the promises.

Whose are the fathers and whom as concerning the flesh? Christ came.

Who is over all? Blessed forever. Now, hold up. Listen to the clear now.

He was praying for his wife, according to the flesh. Now, this doesn't take away from what the Gentiles want to get. OK, if they do what's right.

Let me read Revelations 13, 9 and 10.

If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that lead him into captivity shall go into captivity.

He that kill him with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the

Saints. See, that's good old Christian reading right there. This is what the Saints are waiting for.

Who are the Saints? Psalms 50 and five. Gather my Saints together. Those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

See, this is why the establishment is so fearful. Instead of these modes up. This is why they're so fearful, because they know they had nothing to do with this understanding.

The most time prophesied that he would wake us up. Hosea one and nine.

Let me read it. I'm one in 10. Yet the number of children of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor number.

And it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, you are not my people.

In that same way, it shall be said unto them, you are the sons of the living

God. And that's what's being said in that land of Babylon that we were dragged captive.

And that same land where it was said that we were Hamites, that we were just black or African -Americans or Puerto Ricans or whatever you call yourself after being destroyed by the

Romans. You are the people. How do you think the earth got so rich? Our land is vacated.

The most I want us back. OK. And it tell you and Isaiah, the 60th chapter, the nation that will not follow.

Christ will utterly the most I will utterly destroy for seven years. When it came, the book of Ezekiel, we're going to go all through the earth, gathering the residue of the nations for continual employment.

OK, type it into your computer. Continue employment in the Bible. It's destinations. So to say it's the same equally is utterly ridiculous.

When revelations, the eighth chapter tells us, 11th chapter tells us that the relic unto a rod the angel is using to measure is for the city.

But don't measure the court without because it's for the Gentiles. The Gentiles will the Gentiles will serve in the kingdom.

And there's nothing wrong with that. We have served in their stinking kingdom. OK, crossfire time.

One minute for each one of us. I guess I have to go first. Let me begin by looking at Romans chapter nine, the misuse of it that was just presented.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known, endure with much patience vessels of wrath, prepare for destruction?

He did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory. Even us, whom he also called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

There's Romans 9, 24. There's the conclusion of what was quoted at the beginning. This is called reading the text together.

And the text completely destroys the point that was attempted to be made from the beginning of Romans chapter nine.

There is the assertion, even us, whom he also called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Sir, where anywhere in the scriptures do you see a two level tiered relationship to Jesus Christ?

What does a Jewish person have in Jesus Christ that a Gentile person in Jesus Christ does not have?

Please answer that. I don't know what a Jewish person has. They're the synagogue of Satan, according to the

Bible. So they're the devil. OK, it says, behold, the devil shall cast you into prison.

When they believe it, the Jewish people are behind what you're doing right now. So I don't know what the Jewish people have, but fire coming.

But outside of that, the Israelites, what we have is a promise. According to Romans, you've skipped over.

Now, the other thing is, when you look in Ezekiel, the 37th chapter, it tell you about that volley of the dry bones.

OK, and that the most I would put out his spirit and wake up his people in the last days.

And as he killed 37 with that dry bone with those dry bones. OK, that's who we are. And the most

I say, put up a sign for them. And when they ask, who is it? And you know what? It tells you that we will break down what that sign is in Ezekiel 37.

That you are really the people of light that the Romans and the Jesuits and the Edomites and the other nations celebrated once we once we fell.

That was behind the conspiracy to conceal our identity. OK, all this silliness about Jesuits and stuff aside, which has nothing to do with the

Bible. And you keep bringing it in because you don't have any answers from the Bible. You just abused Romans 9 24.

Obviously, the Jews only there is the people of Israel. It's the same context. You just decide, well, they're just from the devil and stuff like that.

Can you deal with the Bible, sir? Can you actually do exegesis where you start a chapter and you go through to the end?

Because the very next verse, if you look at it, is a quotation from Hosea. I will call those who are not my people, my people.

The low army, the army. You go back to the Hebrew. This would be stuff that should be basic for you. And it's about Israel.

So it's talking about the fact that the body of Christ is made up equally and absolutely of Israel and Gentiles.

That's what it's all about. Please stop this other stuff.

Answer the question I'm asking you. Can you deal with that text? OK, let me make it clear.

Revelations 2 and 9 reads this. I don't know. I don't know.

They are against Christ. They're the same. That's why they worship in the synagogue.

Revelation 3 and 9. They're going to be when Christ comes back. Behold, make them say they and on.

But do. What people claim to be Jews, cause laws that are over there now.

Zionists that are controlling America. And I'm not. But do lie. They not know

Israelites. Behold, I will make them come and worship before. And to know that I love you.

Oh, this is good and Christian right here for Christ. Don't you feel the love? That's what's going to happen to the

Jewish people. OK. OK. One minute. Last time.

OK. One last time, because evidently you cannot touch Romans 9. Evidently, you just won't answer the question.

I'll try it one more time. You've just tried to make distinguishing Jews and Israel in Romans 9.

They're the same thing, sir. No reading of it can escape that.

So it is from, he has called, not from among Jews only. He has called

Jews. You're saying they're satanic. Not from among Jews only, but also among Gentiles. Jews, Gentiles.

Israel, Gentiles. This is the body of Christ. This is the fulfillment of Romans 9. You quoted

Romans 9. Deal with what the text says. Don't go off to Revelation, singular, chapter 2.

Stick with the text and explain to us what it means in Romans 9, 24.

The Jews there are Israel. If you won't do that, then I don't know why we're bothering with this.

You've got a minute. Are you ready? I'm ready. Neither because,

I mean, Romans 9. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham or they are children. But if Isaac shall thy seed be called, then it breaks down, not

Ishmael, not Esau, all through Romans 9. So there's no equality in Christ's kingdom.

Okay? Oh, it's not a kingdom. Just the same way there's no equality. And I don't know why our people are trying to get equality in your

Roman kingdom. We were meant to serve, but you are afraid, aren't you? Because our kingdom is coming.

All right. And guess what? The churches are being released. We're teaching the youth. Okay? All right?

You understand that. That's why, you understand what's going on. The Most High is waking up his people.

All right? Romans 9 is speaking of the rise of Israel and the fall of Esau and Ishmael, who conspired together in Psalms 83 to destroy us.

All right. Final closing statements. Four minutes for me. All right.

First of all, let me just thank everyone who has survived all the way through this. It has been useful, though somewhat frustrating.

But it's been very, very useful in regards to, once again, the fact that Christian truth is determined by biblical exegesis and by an accurate, fair handling of the historical data that is so supportive of what our faith is all about.

And you can tell departures from that by their inability to be able to provide that same kind of information.

In this last subject, I want to make sure that every person listening to this understands what

Romans 9 is talking about. Oh, yeah, God does have the right to choose his people.

But the conclusion is that he has chosen, in Jesus Christ, to save a people that is made up of Jews and Gentiles.

Israel and Gentiles. Those distinctions are gone in Christ Jesus.

There is no Jew or Greek. There is no slave or free man. There is no male or female. Why? Because there is only one way of salvation.

There is only one way to stand before a holy God. My friends, listen to me. Every Hebrew Israelite out there, especially you men, who

I listen to your video where you're engaging in foul language. Jesus said that which fills the heart determines how you speak.

Your hearts are evil. You need to repent and turn to the true and living Jesus Christ. And why can he save?

Because of his perfect death. He gave himself upon Calvary's tree. It was voluntary.

And now we command everyone of every race, anywhere, to repent and turn in faith to Jesus Christ.

And when you do that, when you do that, his righteousness is made your righteousness.

Your sin is imputed to him. His righteousness is imputed to you. And that's why Romans 5 says, therefore having been justified by faith, not by law, but by faith, we have peace with God.

That's what the whole point of Romans 3, 4, and 5 is. In chapter 4, Paul talks about the blessedness of the man to whom

God will not impute his sin. I want to ask every person listening to me, is that you?

Do you know that your sin will not be imputed to you because it's already been imputed to Jesus Christ in your place?

If not, then you don't have peace with God and you don't know what the gospel is. The gospel is for everyone, every single person.

And if you're in Hebrew Israelism and you're struggling under this law and this having to fulfill these things, you'll never make it.

The law was never intended to save us, it was intended to show us our sin and to point us away from ourselves to the sin bearer,

Jesus, the Messiah. And so my friends, today we've talked about a number of things.

But what I want you to hear, what I encourage you to do, look at what

God's word says, not what men say about it. Use the King James Version as long as you can understand it or any modern translation you might be able to understand better that's done properly.

I'm not talking about cultic translations like the Jehovah's Witnesses. But read the word of God. Let it minister to you and you will see that the gospel is for every person who will turn to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith, no matter who they are, no matter how many sins they have,

Jesus is more powerful than any of us are evil sinners. He can bear that sin.

He did upon the tree of Calvary. The gospel is for all races, all men.

That's the Christian message, always has been, always will be. Thank you for watching today's debate. Four minutes, sir.

Okay. I want to say real quick that I want to thank the Most High for this day.

All right. And I want to make sure that the Gathering of Christ Church is out there. Shalom, my brothers and sisters.

And guess what? All you others. Shalom. Now, I would like to say this real quick. All right.

All the good stuff he said was good at the end. Everyone need to be saved. Everyone need to do what's right.

Follow the law. Okay, you're not getting into the kingdom. And the

Gentiles get prepared. We serve. And what goes around comes around.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Because in a righteous kingdom, we will, we will treat you with love and care.

Okay. When the wicked bear through the people more. But the people rejoice when the righteous bear through.

Why do you think the earth is so messed up? The earth is out of course. Now, I want to mention this because this guy put in a jab out there to, you know, to try to smear through omission.

But try to try to claim that. Oh, it's righteous. Yeah. You're cursing out there. Don't try to smear us because you will never see the

Gathering of Christ Church cursing or using any level of profanity. A matter of fact, there's

Gentiles in our church. We treat everyone with respect. Okay.

That's the key. As much life within you be at peace with all men.

Amen. Now, one thing. Don't hold up. Don't amen yet. Because I got a little bit more time. I want to say this.

You have to catch me again after I'm on an 18 hour flight. And had two hours of sleep.

Okay. And then maybe, maybe the whole Israelite community, people out there feel good about you again.

And let me also say this. The Most High is so great because I was like, man, you know, the

Most High must be doing it for a reason. Well, guess what? Through this, an international television show called after seeing your program and asked us to be interviewed because we have churches all over the world.

Thank you. You were used as a stepping stone for the Most High to spread his word.

Okay. Thank you, Gentile. And do what's right to get to the kingdom.

I don't need no more time. Shalom. I'll see you on the academy this Sunday. I'm sorry? No, you can get to the academy too.

You need it. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for joining us today and hope it was very useful to you.

Thank you. All right, folks. There you go. By the way, I made it very clear in my closing statement.

I was referring to a specific video. And everybody knows what video that was. I even linked to it. I wasn't referring to GOCC.

I'm glad that they do not use profanity. So I was not taking a shot at anybody. You all can see all the we're off.

No, I don't mean we're off the air, but we're okay. Yeah, it's just us. Wow. I just let me mention something that vocab mentioned yesterday on the program.

The last dialogue we did a week ago, we know of at least two people that were freed from this religion because of that.

We have received a tremendous amount of information from people, contact information, people saying we felt like y 'all didn't care.

Someone's finally addressing this. Don't get me wrong. I'm not spending the rest of my life talking about this subject. I'm leaving town.

When I get back, there may be room for some other things. I've actually asked Michael Brown to get involved and address a few things because obviously he has a tremendous amount of expertise.

What we're going to do is we're going to put together information. You know, the program we did with vocab will link to the

Apologia stuff. Apologia, I'm sorry, stuff. And we want to put together maybe a playlist on Alpha Omega's website of the information that will help people with this.

I do not have time and I do not feel the calling to spend the rest of my life on this subject.

I'm sorry, I don't. Partly because I'll just be honest with you. There just isn't much to deal with there that is not just such a fundamental and basic error that we've demonstrated over and over again over the course of the past two hours as well.

But two things. The vile hatred that was expressed toward me by various Hebrew -Israelite groups out there, not by GOCC.

That's what we expect from unregenerate men. We need to pray for them. They are very hard to reach because they think that they are self -righteous.

They think they are right with God because they do religious things. If you want to see what the old Pharisees looked like, that's unfortunately very much the case.

But let me address believing Christians in the audience. Yes, the elder is unprepared.

Yes, the elder doesn't seem to understand how to reason in any meaningful fashion.

He can't do exegesis, doesn't do history, things like that. It should cause you to weep, not to rejoice.

You shouldn't be putting memes together mocking this man. I don't want to see that. I want to see, from our audience, prayers.

For this man, yes. But what you really should think about is this man is in a position of leadership. He has spiritual authority over other people.

What you need to be thinking about is, think about all the people down at the bottom of that ladder. The spiritual oppression that they are under.

Do you hear what he just said? After I proclaim the freeness of God's grace in Jesus Christ, what do you say? Keep the law.

Keep the law. There's no freedom in that. They do not understand the gospel at all. And if their leaders don't understand it, then what you need to be doing is praying for those thousands of people who have come under the influence of this.

For whatever reason. Those who are doing this for racial reasons, wow, such hatred

I've seen. It's horrible. Only the love of Christ can melt that heart.

Only the love of Christ can change that person. But those who actually believe this is true, their hearts aren't filled with hate, but now they've been addressed, they've been given a false

Jesus and a false gospel, your heart should break for them. So pray for them. Yeah, do

I get frustrated when someone abuses the word of God? It's right there in front of them? Yeah.

Of course I do. I'm a human being. I think it's appropriate to demonstrate when a false teacher is perverting the word of God.

But I do appreciate the fact that of all these groups, this is the best group in the sense of behavior.

And so will we do more things in the future? I'm sure we will, but it's not going to become a major focus.

I announced on this program about a month ago that I have a specific project that I must pursue for the next couple of years.

And it will have, I think, great significance for a long period of time. And I have to follow through with that.

But as I have opportunity to do this, to defend the truth, we will seek to do so. But please pray for us.

I mean, we've had death threats. A lot of these people are not

GOCC, but these other groups. They're nasty. There is a Sakari group.

That was the video I was talking about. These men are vile. Their language is horrific.

They just, they love their sin. They just give vent to it and then say most high.

And they think that somehow does something for them. And folks like that need your prayers.

Need your prayers. So thank you for surviving for over two hours. Go back over.

Look at the scriptures. Consider the things that were said. Hopefully it will be useful to you.

Thank you, Rich, for making everything work. Let's get this up on the web and see what the