Testament: The Story of Moses Review - A Crime Against The Word of God

Netflix has a new three part series about the life of Moses called Testament: The Story of Moses. It blends reenactments with commentary from scholars associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That in and of itself is very bad because we don't get a real sense of who Moses is and what he really means as he is not the same man to each faith. But that is just a small part of why this series is a steaming pile of donkey manure. 

Let me give two reasons why this new series is worse than Cleopatra. While Cleopatra was awful historical revisionism the danger here is that Netflix is messing with sacred history. 

1. It's too short.

This series is hardly about the LIFE of Moses. It is basically The Ten Commandments and then at the end it skips to his death on Mt. Nebo. It could have been either longer or a lot of the reenactment cut altogether to make room for a fuller story. But thank goodness they opted for neither because what Netflix did with the material they have is utterly atrocious. 

2. The series deviates considerably from the Bible.

Because the producers have Jewish and Islamic scholars giving commentary stories from the Quran and the Midrash are included. That means we learn about Moses having to give a secret code word to Serah Bat Asher, a woman hundreds of years old who came into Egypt with Jacob, to prove he is indeed God's chosen prophet. She hears the magic phrase and sings praises to God and that's how the Israelites knew Moses was legit. 

However, for some reason the producers decided to change much of what is in the scripture and girlboss it up. That means ALL THE WOMEN have faith and ALL THE MEN are faithless. Take Zipporah. In the Bible Moses saves her and her sisters from a group of men and then opens the well and waters their flock. They then go back to their father Jethro and he hears their story and is astonished they did not invite Moses back. So they retrieve him, he eats dinner, Jethro gives him Zipporah to wife, and he serves him for 40 years. 

In this series Moses stumbles out of the desert and Zipporah allows him to drink water. Then he scares off three bandits. They then take him home to their father who is not very sure about this stranger. Zipporah convinces Jethro to allow Moses to tend his sheep. A few months later Zipporah brings Moses food in the desert and sees he has carved Egyptian hieroglyphs into a rock. She asks what it says. He says it's our story. And then they get married. 

There is a lot of nonsense like that scattered all throughout the show. Here is some more:

According to Netflix it was Moses and not God who carved the Ten Commandments into stone.

According to Netflix when the Israelites fought the Amalekites and Moses held his hands up for victory he got tired but he persevered and held them up to the end of the battle. In the Bible he gets tired, sits on a rock, and Aaron and Joshua hold up his hands. 

According to Netflix it was a total surprise to Moses that he was a Hebrew or that he had a brother and sister. 

According to Netflix Moses first met Pharaoh and performed the miracle of turning his staff into a snake at his son's birthday party. Pharaoh is disposed to grant a request on the honor of his son's birthday so Moses says "Let my people go." What is this? The Godfather??

According to Netflix Moses' adoptive Egyptian mother partook of the Passover. Actually that might be in the Midrash. Either way it's not in the Bible but it is in the show.

According to Netflix after Pharaoh and his army were drowned in the Red Sea Miriam alone sang a dirge. In the Bible Miriam and all the women dance with tambourines and sing a song of praise. 

And it goes on and on and on.

There is way too much drama and reenactment and revisionism and not enough about what it all means. Sure there are some platitudes from the commentators but of course there is no hard doctrine. There is also not enough of the Life of Moses. It would have been great to see his wars against the Ethiopians, his marriage to an Ethiopian princess, the wanderings in the wilderness, the building of the Ark and the Tabernacle, and all the rest of the story.  We don't even learn why Moses died outside the promised land. Of course seeing what Netflix did with the little they used I'm glad they did not flub it up even more. 

The whole series is a crime against the Word of God. Any believer of the scriptures cannot take this piece of junk seriously. Stay away. Stay far away.

Jay Dyer Continues to Lie About Sola Scriptura - Claims Protestants Believe the Bible is God!!

Jay Dyer is an ex-Protestant turned Roman Catholic turned Eastern Orthodox. He knows the traditions of all three major branches of the Church. (No, I am not advocating the branch theory here.) Yet for some reason he continues to lie about Sola Scriptura and how Protestants view the Bible saying their doctrine leads to making the Bible God. Let's listen.

Bless God / Ruslan / Gavin Ortlund REFUTED: Sola Scriptura & QNA! -Jay Dyer

47:57 It's just so funny because as you think about this the whole methodology of the Protestant and their whole approach here is literally to make the book God. I mean they actually think that this is God. And that's super duper irony because, number one, it's against their iconoclasm position because if this is God then your God is a creature. And the book is full of images, words. Those are images if you didn't know, they're iconographic. And they're depicting the thing that you say can't be depicted. So, actually you're just a book idolator is all you are even though Jesus said, and he quoted John 10 citing Gavin Ortlund word you know. He cited that where Jesus said "the scriptures cannot be broken." But he also says that You search the scriptures because you think that it is in them that you have eternal life. Oh, but you didn't cite that one did you Ruslan? Did you Gavin? When it is they that bear witness to me.

So, this is like a letter. Imagine mistaking a letter for the person. That's the mistake they're doing here. It's that silly. Right? Somebody writes you a letter about how good of a rapper I am. Now, we all know I'm probably the best. I mean, we all know it's not Lil' AIDS aka Tristana. So, who's left? Me. That's it. Easy equation there. Cancel out the second greatest rapper and you only got one left. So but if somebody writes a big letter explaining how good I am with my vocal bars and skills and you get this letter and you read the letter and you're like "Aww dude I know Jay now. I know all about his freestyle. I know all about his flow cus I read the letter." 

And you're like, "But do you know him?" "Yeah I read the letter, dude." But you don't know me. You read a letter about me. This is how silly it is. 

This video was a livestream and in the comments Rachel Wilson piped up with this ridiculousness:

Rachel Wilson is also a former Protestant of the Dutch Reformed persuasion so she too knows this is a lie yet she says it anyway. Why? Is her book Occult Feminism also this transparently dishonest? 

The short of it is Protestants DO NOT BELIVE THE BIBLE IS GOD. Nor does Sola Scriptura philosophically lead to declaring the Bible is God or worshipping it as an idol. Protestants do not teach the Bible is the Word in exclusion to Jesus Christ. Richard Muller wrote about this issue in the second volume of his Post Reformed Reformed Dogmatics. 

The authority of Scripture rests both on its identity as Word and its inspiration by the Spirit; and, equally so, the unity of the testaments rests both on Christ, who is their scope and foundation, and on the inspiration of the prophets and the apostles by the same Spirit. Scripture is Word because, in its entirety, it rests on the redemptive Word and Wisdom of God finally and fully revealed in Christ. 

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, Richard Muller, pg 206

Richard Muller is definitely a much needed corrective to Jay and his friend's misconceptions and misrepresentations of the Protestant faith. Having read what appears to be all the primary sources of Reformed theology Muller, in four volumes, deftly weaves together a reassessment of Reformed prolegomena, doctrine of scripture, and doctrine of God and the Trinity that upsets conventional wisdom. 

One of the most important things Muller brings up in his magnum opus is the continuity between the Reformed and the medievals. Anyone who has read medieval and Reformed theology would recognize the similarities they share in the doctrine of God and even predestination. The book "Luther: Right or Wrong" has as it's thesis that Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is not at all out of synch with Aquinas. 

Recognizing the continuities between Reformed theology and Medieval and Patristic theology is just as important, if not even more so, as pointing out the discontinuities. 

“The early Reformation view of Scripture, for all that it arose in the midst of conflict with the churchly tradition of the later Middle Ages, stands in strong continuity with the issues raised in the theological debates of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The late medieval debate over tradition and the late medieval and Renaissance approach to the literal sense of the text of Scripture in its original languages had together raised questions over the relationships between Scripture and churchly theology, between the individual exegete and the text, and between the exegete and established doctrine that looked directly toward the issues and problems addressed by the early Reformers. It is, thus, entirely anachronistic to view the sola scriptura of Luther and his contemporaries as a declaration that all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church’s tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text. It is equally anachronistic to assume that Scripture functioned for the Reformers like a set of numbered facts or propositions suitable for use as ready-made solutions to any and all questions capable of arising in the course of human history. Both the language of sola scriptura and the actual use of the text of scripture by the Reformers can be explained only in terms of the questions of authority and interpretation posed by the developments of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Even so, close study of the actual exegetical results of the Reformers manifests strong interpretive and doctrinal continuities with the exegetical results of the fathers and the medieval doctors.”

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol.2, Richard Muller, pg 51-52

Elsewhere Jay has acknowledged that the Reformation did not pop out of nowhere but has its roots in the middle ages. It is rather strange then that Jay prefers to focus on discontinuities as if that alone proves his point. 

If anyone can be called a book idolator it would be the Orthodox who parade it around the sanctuary, smoke it with incense, and kiss it. 

https://holytrinity.ia.goarch.org/our-faith/liturgy

Now, there is a lot that could be written about Sola Scriptura but the real question here is why does Jay Dyer continue to lie about Sola Scriptura and Protestantism in general? When discussing Protestantism I have yet to hear Jay discuss the confessions and what Protestants actually believe. But he is quick to cite silly evangelicals and make false philosophical extrapolations like saying Sola Scriptura makes the Bible God. 

One wonders if Jay will ever discuss Protestantism or even Eastern Orthodoxy, he has yet to talk about the Confession of Dositheus, in an honest manner. 

Greg Bahnsen's Review of David Chilton's Days of Vengeance

I have been listening to an audiobook version of David Chilton's commentary on Revelation, Days of Vengeance recntly. While it is an interesting commentary from a partial-preterist perspective it fails because Revelation was written at a late date during the time of Domition and not during or before the time of Nero. While looking for reviews I cam across the following review by Greg Bahnsen. 

Bahnsen was Chilton's teacher and though they shared much of the same theology he did not recommend Chilton's commentary. Interestingly enough he says nothing about the erroneous attribution of an early date of Revelation. This review has apparently vanished from the internet and is only available on the web archive. I publish it here for anyone else looking for it. 

Review:  “Another Look at Chilton’s Days of Vengeance, Journey 3:2  (March-April, 1988)

By Greg Bahnsen

 

 

The revival of Biblical postmillennialism which we are witnessing in our day will be sustained only if it is fueled and fortified by diligent attention to the Scriptures.  That is what makes so noteworthy a major publication of a commentary on the book of Revelation, such as David Chilton’s The Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth:  Dominion Press, 1987).  The author devotes nearly 600 pages to exposing the text and theology of this “closed book,” and we must appreciate his labors—as well as the generosity of Dr. North in subsidizing them.

 

Since the study of Revelation is a special interest of mine, I am often asked for a brief evaluation of David Chilton’s commentary.  This issue of Journey affords the opportunity to reply once in writing (saving personal repetition).  Because the author and I are friends, because we share a common eschatological perspective, and because he sat through a year of my sixty-five lectures on Revelation (delivered a decade ago), many assume that his approach to Revelation is something I would commend.  The reviewer in Journey (Nov-Dec 1987) saw it as “sound” biblical interpretation, indeed “a brilliant work.”  Reluctantly, I cannot share either assessment.  Here let me suggest another look.

 

There are, unquestionably, many encouraging and helpful things about David’s commentary.  First, it is a modern restatement of a preterist and postmillennial interpretation of Revelation.  Second, specific comments on a number of particular verses are accurate and insightful (e.g., 7:10, where the ascription of salvation to the Lamb is contrasted to claims of the Roman state).  Third, in terms of “packaging,” the book is aptly titled, beautifully illustrated, and clearly written.  Nevertheless, the hermeneutical excesses and errors of the commentary will prove far more detrimental to postmillennialism than any of its isolated virtues can redeem.  Consider three fatal flaws.

 

Interpretive Maximalism

 

               A commentary on holy Scripture must be appraised, not only for what it concludes (its harmony with the Bible’s system of doctrine), but likewise for the way it handles the word of God (its interpretive method).  This is the cardinal area of offense in Days of Vengeance.  David admits to consciously trying to simulate the hermeneutical style of James Jordan’s designated “interpretive maximalism” (IM).

 

               IM claims to be in tune with patristic hermeneutics, holding that “everything in Scripture is symbolic.”  Those benefited with “sufficient imagination” can allegedly see the significance in the “literary architecture” of particular Biblical texts—the way the story is told, even its minor details, what its imagery has in common with other stories, the number of times words are repeated, etc. (pp. 36-37).  For instance, because doorposts could be likened to legs, Jordan claims that the passover blood smeared on doorposts corresponds to the blood of circumcision—which in turn is equivalent to the tokens of virginity from the wedding night (I am not kidding; cf. The Law of the Covenant, pp. 82-83, 252-258).  Jordan finds esoteric meaning in the fact that the word “another” is used exactly six times in Judges 17:1-6.  Karl Hubenthal’s book review of Jordan’s commentary on Judges in Journey: May-June, 1987) duly criticized this as allegorizing the text.  Jordan’s “defense” in the Nov-Dec Journey was two-fold:  (1) Cassuto also reasons in this way [so what?], and (2) this was an ancient literary devise.”  Well, the ancient world certainly did sport many heretic, esoteric, and especially allegorical works (e.g., Philo), but I find it strange that Jordan makes the Bible one of them!  IM leaves the interpreter with an unsure game of “guessing” (as the end of Jordan’s letter admits), rather than a confident “Thus saith the Lord.”

 

               David’s commitment to the imaginative guesswork of IM renders his commentary on Revelation unsound.  Take as one example his treatment of Rev. 7;1-8 (the revealing of the 144,000).  The text says that winds are inhibited from hurting “the earth, the sea, or the trees” (vv. 1, 3).  David mistakenly claims that the change from genitive to accusative case for “tree” in v. 1 is meant to draw “special attention” to that word.  In fact, the change of case simply pertains to the use of the Greek preposition epi: the wind blows “upon” the earth and sea (epi with genitive), but blows “against” the trees (epi with accusative).  What makes this more than an embarrassing error in Greek grammar is the “special attention” David now gives the word “trees.”

 

               He suggests that, since trees are figures for righteous men elsewhere in Scripture, the protection of trees in Rev. 7:1 symbolizes the protection of God’s people.  The suggestion is open to obvious criticism.  (1) We may not take for granted that figures of speech have the same referent in every Bible occurrence (e.g., both Jesus and Satan are called “lions”; cf. the multiple use of “stars” in Revelation).  Why don’t trees represent the monarchs (Dan. 4:10, 22) or—“maximally”—all of the above?  (2) David’s “maximal interpretation” of Rev. 7:1-3 is plainly arbitrary.  Not only trees, but also “earth and sea,” are there protected.  He tells us elsewhere that the sea symbolizes heathen nations who hate the Lord (pp. 318, 327).  Following his logic, should we infer that Rev. 7 speaks of God protecting not only the righteous (trees), but also the heathen (sea), from judgment?  (Actually, David also takes the sea to represent ethnic Gentiles and the abyss of hell: pp. 251, 317.  Are either being protected from the “wind” of God’s judgment according to Rev. 7:1-3?)

 

               David’s IM moves from the arbitrary to the outrageous when, in explaining the “seal” placed upon the foreheads of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:3-4), he alludes to the protective marking of Ezekiel 9:4 and claims that it symbolized “the sign of the cross”!  Error is laid upon error to reach this height of imagination.  (1) the philological error (exposed by Fairbairn: Ezek. 9:4 speaks of an indefinite “mark,” not the Hebrew letter tav.  (2) the orthographic error:  if the ancient tav was different from what we recognize today, it was shaped more like an x, not an upright t(cross).  (3) the historical error:  Jews of Ezekiel’s day would have in mind a form or shape associated with Roman crucifixions of a later age.  (4) the hermeneutical error:  there is no legitimate category of “quasi-prophecy”; this is simply Tertullian’s reading something back into the text.  (5) the liturgical error:  the Bible does not condone the “sign of the cross” as having religious (superstitious) significance for Christians anyway.

 

               Example after example of IM’s “imaginative” approach to biblical interpretation could be given.  The heavenly Woman of Rev. 12 is taken as “astrological symbolism” for zodiacal Virgo, with the sun mid-bodied and the moon under foot, thus pinpointing the birth of Jesus as sundown on September 11, 3 B.C.  Matthew is said to have used three sets of 14 in his genealogy of Jesus because 14 is the numerical value of David’s name.  The “bowls” of Rev. 15:7 are treated as chalices (despite the word being the same as in 5:8 and different from “cup” in 14:10) to make them appear as “negative sacraments.”  These kinds of flaws and misreading make the commentary unreliable for the reader.  Hermeneutical excesses like those of Hal Lindsey (whom David roundly ridicules) are not less serious when they stem from the other end of the eschatological spectrum.  We must all realize that, while creativity is a virtue in an original author, it is a crime in an interpreter.

 

Pandemonium of Literary Structuring Devices

 

Has David understood the book of Revelation as a literary whole?  It would not appear so since he cannot decide what kind of structure or outline it follows.  “Maximalizing” his interpretation, he claims (pp. 13-24) that the book is patterned according to all of the following:  (1) a five-part covenant scheme, and (2) the four sets of seven curses in Leviticus 26, and (3) the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, and (4) the prophecy of Ezekiel, and (5) the early church’s paschal liturgy!  By no stretch of the imagination does this make literary sense.  The conflicts and complexities would have produced chaos in John’s mind and proved nothing but confusing to his hearers (to whom the book was read).  The way one interprets a text is strongly influenced by the context within which he perceives it, and David has no clear conception (or, alternatively, far too many conceptions) of the literary pattern of Revelation.  In this connection there are also a host of detail mistakes made by David:

 

(1)     the monumental error is his artificially imposing “the covenantal structure advocated by Ray Sutton (That You May Prosper, Tyler: I.C.E., 1987) upon the text of Revelation like a Procrustean bed.  Sutton’s thesis is anything but convincing.  He holds that the biblical covenant has “five parts” dealing successively with principles” pertaining to (1) transcendence/immanence,  (2) hierarchy, (3) ethics, (4) sanctions, and (5) continuity.  Sutton sees this five-point pattern repeatedly set forth in Scripture like a master principle of organization: allegedly the ten commandments are really two sets of these five “principles” [commands #3 and #8 being the “ethical” portion?], books of the Bible (Deuteronomy, Psalms, Matthew, Romans) follow this same five-point outline, and Biblical teaching on the family, church and state each fall into this same five-point scheme.  But anyone with a modicum of imagination can devise other “ways to cut the cake” (some with “Trinitarian” threes, some with “perfect” sevens, etc.) and then filter Biblical material through the preconceived grid—with an artificiality and adequacy equal to Sutton’s.  You see, Sutton’s five-point outline does not arise inductively from a study of the text of Scripture itself.  Moreover, it is not even clear what each of five “parts” (or principles”) represents in his scheme:  are they literary genres, successive portions of a document, theological topics, specific theological theses, or just what?  Sutton is so vague here that his position is simply untestable.  If the five “principles” are an ordered scheme of specific doctrinal assertions that outline a discourse, they are certainly not repeated as such throughout Scripture even in passages explicitly dealing with the “covenant”); you can be sure somebody before Sutton would have noticed anything that clear.  If they are only vague theological themes which might be touched upon in a wide variety of ways, there is nothing important or unique about Sutton’s five-point scheme.  And to hold that the five-part succession of these broad themes outlines books of the Bible is almost silly—as we see when Sutton makes the whole fourth “part” of Romans to be only two verses in chapter 16!  It is a shame that David tried to squeeze Revelation into this artificial five-part outline.

(2)     But David also has a four-part outline for Revelation!  He finds a pattern of “sevenfold judgment coming four times” in Leviticus 26 and says it is “fully developed” later in Revelation—a lamentable faux pas.  What occurs four times in Lev. 26 is not seven-fold judgment itself, but rather the statement of God that He will punish seven-fold.  But even overlooking that, how can David reconcile his five-part and four-part outlines for Revelation?  Can the same pie be completely divided into four and completely divided into five pieces?  For an advocate of IM, yes!  David claims (pp. 17-18) that John actually “combined” the four-part curse outline and the five-part covenant lawsuit—because, after all, restitution in the law of God is both four-fold and five-fold.  Is that clear?  Well, there is another step.  According to Jordan’s incredible symbolism, four-fold for restitution was for oppressing the poor (Christ as sheep) and five-fold for rebellion against authority (Christ as Lord).  Therefore, to everyone’s surprise, Revelation is actually structured to communicate a combinationof the multiple restitutions in Ex. 22:1 for Jesus in both his capacities as poor and royal.  This is too bizarre to be taken seriously by any literary critic.

(3)     David’s pandemonium of structuring devices leads him into embarrassing contradictions.  (What else would one expect?)  Consider the letters to the seven churches in Rev. 2-3.  One the Lev. 26-pattern, David makes them to be one of the four sets of seven-fold judgment in Revelation.  On the covenant-pattern, David makes them the “historical prologue” part of the covenant document—the statement of gracious blessinghistorically enjoyed by the vassals under the lord of the covenant!  Well, then, how should we interpret Rev. 2-3, as curse or as blessing?  They are hardly the same (theologically or as literary genres).

(4)     Here is another example of an amazing chain of dubious reasoning (pp. 20-24).  Revelation follows Ezekiel “step by step” [as well as Lev. 26 and Matt. 24?].  Such “level pegging” is a feature of lectionary use.  Both Ezekiel and Revelation can be divided into “about fifty units” [fifty? Previously it was five, then four]—which is also about the number of Sabbaths in the years.  Therefore, Revelation was intended for lectionary use as a series of liturgical readings in the church through the year, accompanying the reading of Ezekiel! Even if we forgive the mathematical inaccuracies (52 sabbaths per year) and arbitrariness (why 50 units instead of 40 or 55?), how does it follow from the rough numerical correspondence of literary units to weeks in a year that Revelation is a liturgical lectionary?  This may be suggested by the interpreter’s personal interests and life-setting, but it is not suggested by the text of Revelation itself!  There is quite a logical leap from saying Revelation was read aloud in church (Rev. 1:3, like Colossians, cf. 4:16 to saying it was read as a liturgical lectionary!

(5)     Sadly, David dismisses the book of Revelation’s own internal indicators of how it is structured:  the three-fold outline in 1:19 (past vision, present situation, things to occur hereafter: cf. 4:1) and the literary devise of two prophetic “scrolls”—the seven-sealed scroll about the fall of Israel (5:1ff.) then the small scroll about the fall of the Roman Empire (10:2, 9:11; cf. 13:7).  It is simple, clear, and found inductively.

 

Misidentification of Key Characters

 

Finally, any commentary on Revelation which incorrectly interprets major figures in the book cannot be condoned or commended to others.  This is the bottom-line failure of David’s book.  It is a misreading of God’s book.

 

               For instance, who is “Babylon, the harlot” about whom John “wondered with great wonder” in Rev. 17?  God apparently wanted us to get this right; His angel undertook to “tell the mystery” of the woman (v. 7).  Yet David’s commentary still misses the obvious.  The angel identifies the harlot as “the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth,” a city set on seven hills (17:9, 18); she is the international commercial center of the ancient world (chap. 18).  Given historical context, this is clearly a reference to Rome.  But because David comes to these passages with a preconceived interpretive scheme, he awkwardly tries to make Babylon the harlot out to be Jerusalem!  David’s strange rejoinder to the objection that the description of the harlot-city does not historically fit Jerusalem is that Revelation “is not a book about politics; it is a book about the Covenant” (p. 442).  (David sure gets a lot “about politics” from this book when he wants to!)  But the facts remains that “Covenant” literature does not, as such, justify historical error.  Jerusalem never “reigned over the nations (even given the contrived reference to Ex. 19:6) and certainly was never—even “covenantly”—the principal importer of goods (even slaves) indispensable to the wealth of international merchants (Rev. 18:3, 11, 14:9).  This is a major blunder.

 

               Similarly, David interprets the “second beast” or “false prophet” who enforces worship of the Emperor (Rev. 13:11-18) as the leaders of Israel, despite the historical inaccuracies involved and with no compelling exegetical argumentation.  This too comes from preconceived interpretive notions.  The second beast is the pagan Emperor-cult itself (pagan ecclesia which stood behind the pagan “polis” or political structure), involving a crass idolatry (13:15) and delegated political power (13:12, 16-17) which were never characteristic of the Jews in Roman era.

 

               So then, I cannot recommend my friend David’s commentary on Revelation.  (1) It embodies an unsound, imaginative hermeneutic.  (2) It is confused about the book’s structure and meaning.  (3) It is guilty of considerable errors in history and interpretation.

 

               But then, to be fair, I should alert the reader that the publisher, Dr. North, has already dispensed in advance with criticisms of the commentary.  His preface warns that the commentary will take some heat, not because of its shortcomings, but because critics are “infected” with disdain over not discovering the “Tyler theology” themselves (pp. xviii-xix).  I will let the reader decide “on the merits” of my critique whether Gary here commits the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well” or not.  Printed words are easier to read than human hearts.

Jewish Objections to Christianity by Jay Dyer

This is an article Jay Dyer published in 2010 concerning Jewish objections to Christianity. The original can be found here. 

Jewish Objections to Christianity

-Jay

A little background. I was raised Protestant, as most of you know, and then went Calvinist, and while I was a Calvinist, I was heavily involved in reconstructionist theology, which lays massive stress on biblical Law. This background prepared me for Catholicism, and I converted in 2003. After 4-5 years of Catholicism I became particularly interested in liturgy and Eastern theology, and it’s contrast with Western theology. Immersed heavily in Thomism and then the Eastern Fathers, I focused on apophatic theology and essence – energy, as many of you know. The last two years, I have become particularly interested in race, Hellenism, and the relationship between Judiasm and Christianity, and that ever-presistent issue of the continuity between Old Testament and New Testament.  Indeed, it even seems to me that the reconstructionists seem to have a thing for Jewish-ish penal sanctions, while the Catholics and Orthodox don’t really care for that, but really dig Jewish-ish liturgical ideas. So the last 8 months or so, I’ve read about 10 books on Jewish theology.

But that’s an oversimplification. I already know all about typology, so we can avoid benign responses such as, “well, it’s a type,” and get to the nitty gritty.  I am asking some questions on a bit more difficult level (though that is related). Again, the first thing that became difficult for me was the Cappadocian conceptions of the Trinity as compared with Augustine and Thomas, which seem more sensible, but also don’t seem to be free from all difficulties. And so I list my difficulties, beginning with theology proper (God) and branching out from there.

 

These are posed for discussion purposes. Keep the hate to a minimum, please. It is also posed for the purpose of getting answers.

1. How is there one ontological will in God, while the Persons appear to do separate actions? For example, the Son does actions in His Incarnation the Father doesn’t do. The Spirit likewise. This seems to require separate willings, but will is not hypostatic, it’s a property of nature. This is why Damascene says there is one will and energy in God, inasmuch as there is one God acting.  Nahmanides makes this same objection, I came to find, that occurred to me.  So how is it the three act differently?  Similarly, is generation not an eternal act? If it’s an eternal action, then it must be of nature and of will. But the Nicene Fathers are adamant the Son is not a product of will in any sense. He is of the Father’s nature. But He and the Spirit share that nature, and thus he is auto-generated. But this makes no sense. Similarly, is spiration also an action? If so, it cannot be hypostatic, it must be of nature, but again, nature is common in the Godhead.  Also, if apophatic theology is true, in a hardcore sense, then there can be no Incarnation, since it is not an energy that became Incarnate, but the divine Son, with His divine nature, as Chalcedon says.

2. This leads to the next issue: the Neo-Platonic doctrine of trinity. A proto-trinitarian doctrine was already taught in Hellenism in Proclus, Plotinus, and others, including a kind of version in Philo. It is hard to accept that the Eastern Fathers were not Hellenistic as the Eastern apologists tell us, when they can’t even seem to figure out if God gave sex and human bodies as a *result of the fall. The threefold power clearly has antecedents in Hellenism and Platonism.  Did God really shift from Jewish monotheism to Greek Hellenism to give the true doctrine?   http://www.iep.utm.edu/neoplato/  And if so, then why is it that Hellenism is the great enemy of the Maccabean period? Remember – the Maccabean books are in our canon. It is Philo from whence the Logos idea comes.

3. Judaism always taught iconoclasm. The Law says not to make alliances with paganism and certainly God forbade paganism as part of His acceptable worship. Yet by the time we are into the second century, pagan basilicas have been converted and are now holy. In fact, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa and Pope Benedict recently, even go so far as to say that the Trinity reconciles Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism (emphasis). How far is this from the declarations that God is God alone, and to destroy pagan altars?

4. The Law. The Law is said to be eternal. This cannot be typologized into some mystical meaning, inasmuch as God Himself even warned against such an approach (Dt. 13, 17, 18).  In fact, God even says that the Law is near you, even unto your hearts, and is not so mystical and impossible as to need to ascend heaven to grasp it. Yet somehow this is a prophecy of the ascension in St. Paul. God promised blessings and cursings based on how the Jews functioned in that covenant.  When they obeyed, they were blessed, and when they failed, they were cursed. How is it this is turned into a situation where God was for thousands of years “tricking” them, intending the Law to be an impossible task (as Peter says it was), when God said it wasn’t impossible, and it was never intended as a means to merit eternal life?

5. The covenant with Israel is said in several places to be eternal. When this is all spiritualized to mean the Church, it becomes a hermeneutical slippery slope, since the cursing passages are not spiritualized, and are only applied to “flesh Israel.” The hermeneutic appears inconsistent and arbitrary.

6. The LXX has flaws and problems and isn’t the original text. Are we to just trust that Origen is right when he says the evil Jews alterred their own prophets? But Origen was a heretic, and Justin Martyr didn’t even get the Trinity right, so is he any better when he makes this same charge against Trypho?

7. How do we participate in divine nature and remain creatures? It’s a mystery. Yet we say it is pantheism when we deify creatures. If the divine nature is simple, then how do we participate in it and remain creatures? we participate in the energies, not the nature. Ok, do we participate in 7 energies, and not 4? 8 and not 3? And for Catholics, what is the difference between supernatural and natural gifts? Which was it the Spirit gave to Bezaleel to design the temple? At what point does a virtue become supernatural and not natural?

8. Did Moses experience the divine radiance? Yes. But the Incarnation had not happened yet. But theosis is supposed to occur only when the Incarnation occurs. If the response is that Moses was deified because it was Christ there, then the Incarnation wasn’t necessary.

9. If the only way eternal life is restored is through the resurrection of Christ, then why do angels have eternal life, since Hebrews says they do not share in redemption? This means God can grant eternal life without a human sacrifice. Indeed, Anselm’s theory of the Atonement is absurd, but the same objections can be applied to a Neo-platonic or patristic idea that death could not be overcome other than by the Incarnation. Why? God has always been immanent and present in the world as all the theophanies show, and if Moses saw the divine radiance, then why does there have to be an Incarnation or a human sacrifice?

10. God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites. This is hard for 90% of Christians to accept, but denying this leads to absurdities. Acceptance of it means that God was racial. No Christian churches really teach race. In fact, most churches actively work to oppose race. But unless humans totally changed in the first century, men are still pretty much acting like they did 3,000 years ago.  90% of Christians feel the bizarre need to “spiritualize” the Canaanite conquest and extermination, or even outright reject that “God.” That would be Marcionism, of course, but acceptance of that God entails a God who told the Jews they could practice slavery as well as enact usury on Gentiles. So all you conspiracy chaps who bitch about the Jewish bankers have to admit they got this from God.  God also condones slavery. Now, God says over and over how just His law is, and if this is so, then slavery and usury must in some sense be just. So also must death for adultery, homosexuality, etc. But the only Christians who will say this are heretics (reconstructionists) and amount to nothing.  It also doesn’t work to say this was all temporary, since mankind still operates pretty much like he did then, and we are told in Dt. 4 that the wisdom of God’s law and it’s justice are a light to all nations. Did God’s social justice vanish in the New Testament?

11. If the Messiah has come, then why has the Church been full of wars, splits, conquests, and evil men, when the Messianic era is said to be one of peace? It’s a spiritual peace, you will say. The nations are supposed to no longer learn war. Do you notice how everything is constantly getting “spiritualized” when it doesn’t appear to match up? But aren’t we in the time of the reality, and not the type? This brings me to the next big one.

12. If we are experiencing the realities in the New Testament, and the Law was the shadow, then why is it we are still in a state of shadow? The Church building and elements are still considered foreshadowings of heaven. Yet, the Temple was already heaven on earth. It was already the ‘real presence’ of God. So it appears we have moved from OT type –> NT type —> heaven. How many heavenly liturgies are there? There’s one in heaven, we know. But on earth there are a thousand different – some shitty, some pretty. If we read Leviticus, it is hard to see how we get from Nadab and Abihu to the Novus Ordo.  It can be responded that this was necessary as the covenant was opened to the Gentiles, but is the situation as dire as Lev. 10? Indeed, as the fathers argue, it’s far worse, since that’s the real presence. Well, if that’s the case, then we should see far more Uzzahs.

13. Why is the book of Esther in the Christian canon? It specifically condones post-Canaanite genocide and conversion to the supposedly “corrupted Babylonian Judaism.”  From a hardliner trad Catholic or Orthodox perspective, it is hard to see why this is in the canon, as well as the Maccabees. However, once again we will see that the justification will be something along the lines of how it is “spiritualized” or “allegorized.” Again the trend – when in doubt, allegorize it.

14. We condemn “Pharisee tradition” but we rely on that tradition in many places, just like Protestants rely on Catholic tradition.

15. It is hard to see why any Jew would have been expected to convert to the Church of the first 2-3 centuries, since it was so full of bizarre and absurd teachings. For example, denying the death penalty was normative, as well as weird views of sexuality. Can you blame any Jew for not joining this group, when they had been warned in the Deuteronomy passages above to have a healthy skepticism about newly rising movements among them?

16. God made man as a man, yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy want men to live like angels. But God reproved the angels who sought to change their habitation. Why should he expect man to become an angel?

17. David, and most of the fathers of the OT of necessity lived most of their lives in mortal sin, if the moral law is a reflection of Gods essence (as in Catholicism). This is because David had numerous wives, and such an action, if presently a mortal sin, must always have been one, since it is a reflection of God’s essence, which cannot change.

–Many more can be listed, but these should generate a good discussion.

Patristic Faith Is Ashamed of the Confession of Dositheus

Is Fr, Dr, Decan Ananias of Patristic Faith ashamed of the Confession of Dositheus? It would seem that way. Fr, John Whiteford published an article on the Patristic Faith website about how to select a good English translation of the Bible. I found that to be odd because the Confession of Dositheus explicitly prohibits the laity from reading the scriptures. So, I posted a comment in that regard and it never got approved. 

https://www.patristicfaith.com/orthodox-christianity/an-orthodox-look-at-english-translations-of-the-bible/

It's really amazing how the Orthodox refuse to discuss the Confession of Dositheus and its absolute prohibition on reading the scriptures by the laity. If you bring it up they will block you and immediately end the discussion.  It is completely disingenuous. Jay Dyer, who is a contributor at Patristic Faith and part of that whole online OrthoBro Pack which includes David Patrick Harry who also cannot handle opposing views, blocked me for the very reason that I asked about it. 

It's odd because Fr. Josiah Trenham in his book Rock and Sand has the Confession of Dositheus at the end as Orthodoxy's official response to Protestantism, specifically Calvinism. That would seem to imply that the Confession of Dositheus is binding and normative to this day. If it is not then it's only an old curiosity like the 2nd canon from II Nicea which says:

Whoever is to be a bishop must know the Psalter by heart

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Is every Bishop in the Church required to know the Psalter by heart in this day and age?

Recently I had a discussion about the Confession of Dositheus with an Orthodox priest on Twitter. Amazingly he was willing to talk about it. But eventually he decided to not continue the conversation. In this article I am going to post that conversation and give a brief analysis.

The conversation started when I posted a response to Fr. Dr. Deacon Ananias' tweet for the article about which English Bible translation to use.

just looking at this reminds me of this: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx imagine being orthodox and being against Sola Scriptura and using what is essentially a protestant study bible!

That review was of the original Orthodox Study Bible, which was just the New Testament and Psalms. The current OSB clearly took some of those criticisms to heart. It is not a bad text, though it is not perfect either.

I replied:

It is still fundamentally protestant in its entire scheme. The confession of dositheus forbids the laity from reading the scriptures in the vernacular.

He responded thusly: 

This confession was written in a particular Greek speaking context, and to this day the Greek Orthodox are not big on vernacular translations, because they have the original text of the NT. However, St. John Chrysostom regularly taught that laity should read the Scriptures.

My reply:

I am well aware that Chrysostom exhorts again and again for the laity to read the scriptures. So how is the CoD Orthodox? or maybe Chrysostom was wrong? In Seraphim Rose's bio we read that the Russians don't read the scriptures. Fr Josiah Trenham reprints the CoD in his book.

That makes it appear that the contents of the CoD are binding to this day. There is more than just a prohibition of reading the scriptures in that text so I don't think you can brush it off as if it has a particular context and does not apply to us today.

He replied: 

Just like any historical document, it has to be interpreted in its historical context. You can hardly argue that the Confession of Dositheus forbids the reading of Scripture by the laity, and argue that the Russian Church accepts its authority, when it has never taken it that way

My reply:

So then what authority does the CoD have? Rose's bio shows the CoD in action. The CoD absolutley forbids the reading of scripture by the laity. Yet others ignore it. So what is the use of this confession and the synod of 1628 if everyone ignores it?

He replied: 

The Confession has authority as it has been interpreted for the past several centuries... which is not the way you are suggestion it should be understood.

My reply:

Is there any literature on the Synod of 1628 and its correct interpretation? Any sermons or discourses or anything like that?

I am not aware of any commentaries that have been translated into English, so we have to look to the course of performance... i.e. actual application.

My reply:

Where can we find this application? I have already quoted from Rose's bio where the Russians are not reading the scriptures because they have the liturgy. And there is nothing like an OSB until mass Protestant conversions in the 80s.

His reply: 

You find it in the history of the publication of editions of the Bible, and the active encouragement of the laity to read it. You find it when you read the classic "The Way of a Pilgrim"...

you find it in Dostoyevsky's Novels, such as Crime and Punishment, which ends with a laymen reading the Gospel of John, and you find it in many other texts, such as "Missionary Conversations with Protestant Sectarians." Fr. Seraphim (Rose)'s biography has no great authority.

My reply:

So how do the fictional Dounia and Raskolnikov have more weight for you than the actual situation of Russian Orthodox? I mean this issue of Biblical illiteracy is what prompted Rose on his Great Work and you are dismissing it.

My conversational partner, who I assume is Fr. John Whiteford but could be someone else, did not reply further. 

First, I thank this person for dialoguing. He brings up some interesting points. Despite this confession prohibiting the reading of the scriptures by the laity in the vulgar tongue the Orthodox Church did print vulgar translations. There is also The Way of a Pilgrim where the narrator's only possessions are the clothes on his back and a Bible in his breast pocket.

My worldly goods are a knapsack with some dried bread in it on my back, and in my breast-pocket a Bible. And that is all.

https://jbburnett.com/resources/french_way_of_a_pilgrim.pdf

Eventually he acquires a Philokalia. 

But how does that negate the words of the Confession of Dositheus which are rather blunt in denying that Christians are to read the Bible in their vulgar tongue. 

Question 1 

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians? 

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats. 

Question 2 

Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them? 

If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search them; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit. 

Certainly, those that are regenerated [in Baptism] must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens. Yet what concerns regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, indeed impossible, for them to know what the Holy Spirit has made apparent only to those who are disciplined in wisdom and holiness.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Not only are all Christians forbidden to read the Scriptures but even if they did read them they are unable to grasp their meaning because the Scripture is not plain enough to be understood. How else is one to understand this confession except in its plain sense?  The Pilgrim was not following the dictum laid out in this confession. 

What we see here is a real disconnect and contradiction between Orthodox doctrine and praxis. The Confession of Dositheus forbids the laity to read the Scriptures yet in the The Way of the Pilgrim as well as Crime and Punishment laymen were reading and even understanding the Scriptures. Though both works are fiction they each reflect real life. Now there is even an Orthodox Study Bible which, despite its thoroughly Protestant pedigree from publisher to New Testament translation, has not been condemned by the Orthodox hierarchy. 

As it is I believe this confession is an embarrassing stain on Orthodoxy and rightly so with its unambiguous statement forbidding laymen to read the Bible. There is no getting around that. Yet the history of the Orthodoxy shows that this prohibition is something that was never put into practice. What then is the value of this document for us today? What value was it for people 400 years ago? Was it ever enforced? What is the exact and proper interpretation of the Confession of Dositheus? Father Josiah Trenham includes this confession in his book Rock and Sand as being the Orthodox response to Protestantism. Does he really believe his parishioners should not read the scriptures? 

Orthodox are reluctant to discuss the Confession of Dositheus or that there is a lack of literature on the subject. Perhaps one day this issue can be finally resolved. Until then there is no reason to think otherwise that the Orthodox Church forbids the laity from reading the Bible. 

David Patrick Harry of Church of the Eternal Logos Hates the Scriptures

In a previous article I wrote that I was tired of David Patrick Harry, also known as Church of the Eternal Logos, because he misrepresents Orthodoxy and Christianity in general as a sober acid trip. However, I still listen to him because he discusses interesting topics and it is a good way to keep tabs on the Orthobro sphere. 

In one livestream open call-in show the topic was Yuval Noah Harari's desire to rewrite the Bible using A.I. and ways to fight the World Economic Forum. One caller said the best way is to know the Scriptures. David Patrick Harry was having none of it. I am going to reprint the entire conversation below which shows definitively that David Patrick Harry has no love for the scriptures. 

Open Panel: WEF Wants to Ban and Rewrite the Bible With A.I.

1:02:10 Matt: Hey can I, um, jump in yeah? 

DPH: What's up Matt?

Matt: Yeah you know this is, um, I just thought I'd mention about the whole Bible thing and this is why I have I, I you know I have an issue. I like watching Orthodox content but this is why I feel like you gotta be masters of the Bible, you know? I feel like the Orthodox, Catholic you know these Traditions kind of get in the way of of the pure...

DPH: This is dumb, okay. Matt come on who put the Bible together? Bro, like what are you talking about the pure Bible like who's interpretation?

Matt: Well, that's why you know in biblical hermeneutics we use something called, um, you know scripture interpreting scripture we never want to go outside of the scriptures. 

DPH: Come on man, name a Protestant Nation that's still Protestant.

Matt: Technically America is supposed to be.

DPH: No. You're, you think America is mostly Christian based on its values?

Matt: Uh, it's definitely being warred against but specifically 

DPH: Yeah, because protestantism is no Force against magic, bro. That's why if somebody's possessed they're not going to a, you know, Jim Bob at his Baptist Church. They're going to a priest because 

Matt: I see a lot of demons being cast out on Tik Tok and other things and live streams and but, but that's kind of besides the point I wanted to get to, okay. Because how are we gonna argue you know, you know, um, don't change the Bible, AI all these different things when the Bible itself gives us the tools and, um, uh, the weapons to fight against these ideologies if you don't know the Bible ,if you can't quote more than just the Bible? 

DPH: It's more than just the Bible man it's the sacraments of the church. It's the Eucharist, it's, it's, it's marriage within the church, it's all the sacraments.

Matt: Well, yeah you know me too 

DPH: You're like out, again you're an atomized individual like fending off demons if you're only defense is the Bible. You're not part of a real community that is, again, protected by the body of Christ. 

Matt: Well I wouldn't say it that way because what happened when when Christ died on the cross? What happened to the veil in the temple?

DPH: What does that have to do with protestantism?

Matt: Because you no longer have to go through a mediator you go straight straight to God through this 

DPH: Yeah the church that he ordained exactly. The church you're right. 

Ivan : God is the mediator that's why he incarnated that's the, that's why we're not gnostics. Like if you if you want to say that, uh, you don't need a mediator then why should God become incarnate man? 

Matt: He came incarnate to save the world and this is what I was getting at 

Ivan: What does that mean there is no sacramentality?

DPH Yeah what does that mean? We just make a proclamation of faith is what I guess it means, right?

Matt: Well Romans 10:9 says if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you believe that God raises..

DPH: Does revelation talk about Saints, Matt? Are there Saints in Protestantism? Well, what's the role, what's the role of incense in scripture both New and Old Testament?

Matt: Well, in the New Testament there's no rules given for incense so therefore 

DPH : It speaks specifically in the Book of Revelation. What's it say there? The incense is what?

Matt: It represents the prayer of the Saints so it's actually the prayer of the saints that is the answer.

DPH: Where's your saints bro? Where's your Saints? What are...you're in the wrong Church man? 

Matt: No, no, no in Protestant theology everyone who's Christian is a saint.

DPH: Oh, come on bro 

Matt: I mean come on guys let's let's keep it, you know.  

Ivan: Okay, it's okay, it's okay, We, we don't wanna, we don't wanna... 

DPH: Yeah, we don't need to get into this but, but you came on... 

Matt: No, I just want to bring this up to you uh, uh David that in the Scripture it says all scripture is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction of righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished for every good work. So, knowing the scripture will give you the tools will give you the lifestyle will give you the ability...

DPH: So, people who don't know scripture are damned? They're doomed?

Matt: They certainly are not in a good position. 

DPH: So when people are born with Down Syndrome they're they're unfortunately uh they're doomed... 

Matt: No, no of course not. 

DPH: ...because they can't they can't understand scripture the same way? 

Matt: No, that's why the gospel is so simple that's the point I was getting at earlier 

DPH: What if they can't what if they can't even understand the simpleness of that? 

Matt: Of the Gospel? First Corinthians 15 1-4.

DPH: Yeah, I'm talking about somebody who's mentally, mentally impaired. Again the point is your whole thing's focused on rationalism and you're po, you're in a post, it's, it's, it's, theology man. It's an Enlightenment Theology and unfortunately that's why, that's why it's so dead. Like it's dying all over the world. 

Matt: Well, according to Scripture what is the sword...

DPH: Except Korea. South Korea is quite, uh, quite growing in their in their Protestant Faith but that's because Christianity is so new there. 

Matt: Well well according to the Scripture what is the sword of the spirit? What is our weapon? It's the scripture. It's not philosophy. It's not you know it's tradition

Ivan: It's the Holy Spirit, man.

Matt: It's not, it's not sacraments. No, it says the the Word of God is is the sword of the spirit. We have to know the word of God.

DPH: Okay but you don't even have all the books in your Bible. You, you got an Orthodox Bible? How many books you got in your Bible?

Matt: Do you have a King James Bible?

DPH: How many books do you got in your Bible?

Matt: Um, 66 I believe. 

DPH: Right

Matt: So what? 

DPH: I got 78. 

Matt: Well, yeah this this is what I was getting at with the whole...

DPH: Okay who put who put the Bible together? Was it, was it John Calvin? 

Matt: It's a, it's a Divine artifact. This is what I was talking to..

DPH: So who, who led those people, what led those people to make the right decision?

Matt: It wasn't, it wasn't a decision that that's my point. 

DPH: It was. It was a council, synodal Council, led by the Holy Spirit which can convince, sixty percent of them were Aryans. Saint Athanasius, who's part of our church, was emphatic about the Incarnation of God being fully Divine, fully man and that's his rhetorical, uh, presentation of that at the First Council is why that became Dogma. 

Matt: We, we wouldn't say so. We'd say the scriptures are very clear about...

DPH: Who's we? You can't represent all of Protestantism because you guys are all fractured. Who's we ?Your Church?

Matt: Anyone who affirms the five solos.

DPH: Yeah are those in Scripture?

Matt: Yes.

DPH: Sola scripture is in scripture?

Matt: Yeah.

DPH: No. I know you interpret it that way.

Matt: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc.

DPH: This is off topic bro. This is off topic. We're talking about the World Economic Forum and you want to come in here promoting Protestantism against Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Matt: No, but what I was trying to encourage us to do as Christians is to know the Scripture that way we're not fooled by these different things and we can...

Ivan: First you have to be a Christian for that and I wouldn't say that you are from that point of view. I'd say you're a modernist. Like, your version of Truth is like a speech it's like a text that doesn't reflect reality. So, you deny mediation. Why does the Bible about mediation? The books themselves their mediation. So, how how do you deny mediation?

Matt: Well, let me just ask this one question: Is the Bible sufficient to make the man of God perfect thoroughly equipped for every good work yes or no?

DPH: No. 

Ivan: No.

Matt: Well, but it says in the Bible it is. 

Ivan: Where? 

DPH: Wait, yeah, hold on this is totally off track Matt. I'm about to, uh, this isn't the point of this open Panel and nobody here is going to get into your Protestant BS, bro. Like, it's it's futile. It's, it's not,. it's not a defense against the evil present in this world. It's a, it's dying and Orthodoxy, I mean this we're explicit, Orthodoxy is the Church. That's the historical church. Anybody who studied church history knows that. If you're into, um, the idea that the church and faith has evolved and that somehow they finally got it with the five Solas then that's fine I'm not here to convince you but this isn't about protestantism versus the actual sacramental forms of Christianity that actually have a historical validity back to the apostles.

Matt: All right, well that's fair. You know what next time you have an Open Panel maybe you can open up for these discussions I think these are very important but I just want to encourage 

DPH: We can. That's not a bad idea, that's not a bad idea. I can do that in the future and I and I'd be more than welcome for you to come on and we can then hash that out, uh, but this one is specifically focused on on, on the globalists and its relationship the, the forces that we face in its relationship to tradition and Orthodoxy, the Bible, scripture, um, all that so...

Matt: And, and that's my final point...

DPH: You're more than welcome to stay but let's just change the focus from promoting Protestantism to actually the threat to the world.

Matt: No, and you know what I'll leave with that but that was my final point is that the only firm tradition the only Firm Foundation we have is the scriptures. Everything else is futile 

DPH: No, the church, it's the church that gave you the scriptures, Bro. You've totally missed missed the beginning point. It's the Apostles, it's Christ, it's the apostles and it's the church that they founded read the Epistles.

Matt: Yeah that's fair and, uh, hey thank you for letting me on and next time you have an open panel on solo scripture or Protestantism I'd love to come back.

DPH: Yeah I will thank you Matt and I appreciate you being respectful brother.

Matt: Alrighty brother God bless 

DPH: God bless you 

David: God bless.

This conversation is absolutely ridiculous and David Patrick Harry simply does not get it. The subject of the video is about the WEF rewriting the Bible using A.I. Matt calls in and says the way to not be fooled by all this is to know the scriptures because they are sufficient to thoroughly equip a man for every good work. 

But DPH and Ivan both say this is wrong. The Scriptures are not sufficient, thus contradicting the very words of Scripture. Let's hear what John Chrysostom has to say about these verses.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. [R.V.: Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable, etc.]

Having offered much exhortation and consolation from other sources, he adds that which is more perfect, derived from the Scriptures; and he is reasonably full in offering consolation, because he has a great and sad thing to say. For if Elisha, ho was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die, and that he could not enjoy his company when he was near his death, which is above all things apt to be distressing? For we are less grateful for the past time, when we have been deprived of the more recent intercourse of those who are departed. For this reason when he had previously offered much consolation, he then discourses concerning his own death: and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him and fill him with joy; so as to have it considered as a sacrifice rather than a death; a migration, as in fact it was, and a removal to a better state. For I am now ready to be offered up 2 Timothy 4:6, he says. For this reason he writes: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. All what Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, From a child you have known the holy Scriptures. All such, then, is given by inspiration of God; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

For doctrine. For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

That the man of God may be perfect. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

Thoroughly furnished unto all good works; not merely taking part in them, he means, but thoroughly furnished.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

What a stark contrast between David Patrick Harry, Ivan, and Chrysostom! 

One would think that Christians of all stripes would agree that knowing the Scriptures is very important. But David Patrick Harry is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and they do not put a high value on Scripture. In fact the official, canonical Orthodox document The Confession of Dositheus forbids all laymen from reading the Bible and is quite explicit that the Bible cannot even be properly understood because it is not clear in its teaching which means it is impossible for the common man to grasp.

Question 1 

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians? 

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats. 

Question 2 

Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them? 

If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search them; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit. 

Certainly, those that are regenerated [in Baptism] must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens. Yet what concerns regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, indeed impossible, for them to know what the Holy Spirit has made apparent only to those who are disciplined in wisdom and holiness.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

What makes this all the more ironic is that later in the stream a caller wants to "challenge some verses from the Bible" and David Patrick Harry refers him to the Orthodox Study Bible.

1:22:06 DPH: What's up Truth Finder? How you doing brother? 

Truth Finder: Uh, what's going on? Hey I just wanted to challenge some verses in the Bible 

DPH: Okay, you want to challenge some verses? 

Truth Finder: Yeah. 

DPH: No, that's not that's not what this is about, bro.

Truth Finder: Yeah, yeah well I want to know, I want I don't want to challenge it, I want to know the meaning of this verse. Can I tell you? 

DPH: I mean... 

Truth Finder: It's not a challenge I just want to know the meaning of it 

DPH: Okay go get an Orthodox Study Bible and go look at the footnotes there you go. 

Truth Finder: Well, yeah.  

DPH: Go get an Orthodox Study Bible and look at the footnotes for that verse 

Truth Finder: Okay 

DPH: Go to your local Orthodox, go to your local Orthodox Church.

Is he unaware that the Orthodox Study Bible is the product of Protestants who converted to Orthodoxy? Specifically it is the project of Peter Gillquist.  The translation of the New Testament in the OSB is the very Protestant New King James Version! The whole idea of a study Bible comes straight out of Calvin's Geneva where English refugees translated the Bible and added notes. The Geneva Bible is the world's first study Bible. 

Let's take a look at one of the footnotes in the Orthodox Study Bible. This is a commentary on 2nd Ezra 5:1-17 and is found on page 542.

The appeal to search the king's treasure house to find the king's decree parallels the Church's readiness to search the Scriptures (Jn 5:39; Acts 17:11). Appealing to the Scriptures is how Jesus and His apostles demonstrated His genuine claim to be the Christ, the incarnate Son of God (Lk 24:27; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28). Interestingly, the appeal to the Scriptures was also one of the ways Jesus' enemies tried to malign Him (Mt 4:6; Jn 7:52). In both cases, the reliability and authority of what has been written, accepted, and handed down as Holy Scripture is unquestioned.

"The reliability and authority of what has been written, accepted, and handed down as Holy Scripture is unquestioned." Does David Patrick Harry know about this footnote? 

It's sad that David Patrick Harry is having a discussion about the WEF wanting to rewrite the Bible and he rejects the idea that Christians should actually know the Bible. However, when understood that ignorance and dismissal of the Scriptures is the fruit of Eastern Orthodoxy it all makes sense.