If no Roman Catholics show up, then what I will do is shift into
just the outright refutation of the whole natural theology project, the Vatican Two and
the resulting apostasy of the Abrahamic Faith Center as a result of Vatican Two.
And we're going to go through in an indirect way, a means of refuting
the entire system by literally going through all of the Old Testament references to the
Triad. In doing this, what will end up demonstrating is that there is
no such thing as a generic Unitarian God that Muslims, Jews, and Catholics
worshiped together. In fact, if the Old Testament teaches the Triad, then
that means that the only way to worship God is by acknowledging and worshiping the
Triad. That would mean that Roman Catholicism contradicts in its Vatican two presuppositions that
Muslims also worship the One True God and share the faith of Abraham. And
anybody who's debated Muslims, as we've done for the last five years, debating
all of the top Muslims except for his job. He's the last one,
and we've tried to get him to do it. Too. What I've learned
is that there's a commonality, and people say, we aren't you debating all
the Jews. Jews don't proselytize and they rarely debate. But if we undercut
the entire project of unitarianism, then all that's left is the Orthodox confession of
the Triad in this crucial doctrine that the God of the Old Testament is explicitly
the Triad. Before we get into this, we don't have to restrict today's
discussion just to that topic. I don't expect any romcaly sex will show up,
but if they do, we will go to them and let them make
whatever arguments they want. They can have the floor for as long as they
want to make arguments. We're not debating what you think about me. We
all know you hate me. We all know I m akgb sorcerer. Have
fine, We got it, So let's move into the topics and let's hear
your arguments. That's what I want to hear. Now. Beyond that,
though, a couple points on why this triad thing matters and why we want
to use this approach. First point is that using and arguing for the try
in the Old Testament does not mean that there's no admission of differentiation. So,
for example, as one Catholic said today, are you saying that the
rabbinic sources of the second and third century who admit multiplicity, are you saying
that that's the triad. No, that's to demonstrate, as I argued in
the Daniel hookee Getchy debate, that Judaism in the first, second, third
century was not monolithic. It was not monolithically Unitarian. And that's why many
of the scholars today that we've cited in that debate, Mollar, in Summer's
Others, Schaeffer, they admit that modern Jewish scholarship is coming to recognize that
there's not a strict Unitarian emphasis in the Old Testament, as people like Mimondes
would assume. So it's actually later, at the time of Mamonidies that you
get this unification and codification of a strict Unitarian idea of God. And as
Summers argues, the ancient Hebrew revelation actually demonstrates what he calls a fluidity,
so that fluidity is not something invented by the New Testament. They don't have
to know the term quote triad. Okay, So let's get past these low
level misunderstandings that we hear from people like Trent or whoever else. We're not
arguing that they have to understand the Nicene definition of Homelusius. All they have
to know is that there's Yahweh, his angel messenger, who has identified as
Jesus many times over in the New Testament, as well as the apologetic of
Justin Martyr against Tripho. How does Trifo argue the Trinity? By the way,
this is prior to the use of the term triad, Oh, the
Old Testament exactly trifle the jew is refuted by the Old Testament, as say
Maximus says, the triad enlightened Abraham to worship God one in three and three
in one. So what is common in the Orthodox Church. Every Orthodox person
who's seen the rublev Icon, probably one of the most famous icons the Orthodox
Church knows that that teaches the Trinity. It's the icon of the meal with
Abraham for those that don't know, and that teaches the triad. It means
that Abraham at a meal with Jesus, and Jesus says this in John five
through nine. Literally, the entire argumentation of John five through nine is Jesus
arguing with the Pharisees that he was the one at Mount Sinai. He is
the one talking to Moses, He's the one eating with Abraham. And by
extent you guess what, He's the one that is in Exodus at the top
of the mountain when Moses goes up and has a meal. Who's Moses having
a meal with same person Abraham's having a meal with. Now Trent would have
us believe that they had a meal with them, but they didn't know who
they were eating with. They didn't know who this was, and they didn't
understand the triad. But later, upon reading this back into the Old Testament,
we understand it as somebody perceptively noted. This is as silly as saying
that the people at the event of the Big Nine event didn't know what was
happening, but by a later newscast they understood what the Big Nine event was.
This is how silly. This is. No Abraham, as Saint Maximus
says, has a direct noetic intuition of the triad, which by the way,
shows that the Roalmancatholic position is further refuted by not teaching the Doctor of
the News. So we're gonna open it up. I want to go ahead
and get to these people, and if we don't get a lot of that,
I'll just go We're gonna go right into We're gonna straight to Genesis.
We're gonna redo the talk that I did five years ago, which by the
way, went through about three hours of text, and upon rereading the Old
Testament multiple times since then, since five years ago, guess what I missed
a ton. That's the amazing nature of this inspired text is that you can
read through the Bible a million times and you're always going to see new stuff.
That's amazing. That's how amazing it is. And excuse me. The
good news is that the Manuka honey is helping to break up this cough,
so I will not be hopefully coughing as much. So now we're going to
go back through the Old Testament, starting in Genesis. Now, remember I've
already lectured through the entirety of Genesis. We have multiple lectures years ago on
that I've lectured through the entirety of the Gospel of John. We have lectures
on the entirety of that. But now what we're gonna do, depending on
how this goes and if we get too many Roman Catholics, I'll just save
that for the next stream. We'll just start what we we'll call it our
Triad lectures, because Trent has a problem and doesn't know that this term is
the common used term amongst the Eastern Fathers for the Trinity, and he tripled
down as if this wasn't the meaning of the term, which is laughable.
And I think it's great because this is actually provoked, this entire thing,
and it's gonna end up being ultimately, hopefully a masterful lecture series by God's
grace to defend the Triad throughout the entire Testament. And when one fell swoop,
we will refute the Roman Catholics and the Muslims and the Jews. How's
that, Jackie? I said, I wouldn't debate the ladies, but we
got a lady go for it. Hey man, I know that there are
several people that are trying to come into this space to engage with you.
You just quote tweeted me, and I know I'm going to take the message
as far as personality assaults, but some of my guy friends would like to
come in and speak with you in a healthy and helpful manner. Can you
please unblock a few of them? Well, it depends on who they are.
Who is it. Well, you said that there were no Catholics willing
to engage. You then called me a drunk mom. No, I made
a joke calling you a wine mom. It was a joke. Okay.
Well, some of my guy friends would like to be able to come speak.
I know Wagner's blocked. I know Tom, Okay, I just I
just hold on. I just unblocked Wagner and offered him to come in and
he declined. Okay. Well, I just think that in good faith,
maybe you know, less character assassinations would be great. Okay, you got
you understand that your whole crew, hundreds of people have called me every name
in the book in the last two days, and I don't care. And
I make one wine mom joke to you, and now you've got to have
a bunch of wag Knights come in defend you. Again. That's not necessary,
but I just think it would be in good faith if you want to
have an open dialogue. It's an open forum. That's why you're here to
some people that would be great. Unblock who because I unblocked Pine Suck or
whatever his name is he can come in here? So where's all the guy
friends again? Wagner declined to come in here? Okay, she left.
Uh, if you're of this party of the guy friends, you're welcome to
hop on. Is this you or will? Are you one of these people?
You notice how they called me every name in the book for days on
end, and I make one wine mom joke and they're all ready to pounce.
I mean, this is so ridiculous. Go ahead, Well I'm mute.
Yeah, Well, I originally it was going to come out good to
have a conversation specifically about the rublev remark that you've made. But okay,
I mean you don't think that's true? Well, I mean the point thing
we're making. I mean, well, there is a secularity that an icon
depicting an event which was written, an icon written by Christians typologically inferring trinitarianism
upon an event that happened in the Old Testament. Okay, so you don't
think the Old Testament teaches that, well, I mean it's quite but also
false. Are not clear from the manuscript basis. Just looking at the Uline
epistles, there are various indications that handling on Theine epistles. It's clear for
your nine What are you talking about theline epistles? Oh? Yeahn right,
But I mean I was going to have that conversation with you, but I
think that, okay, well, let's go to the Old Testament of stuff.
Do you think that the Old Testament teachers? Oh so you're not going
to debate that. Well, I'm not interested in having a debate about the
substance of our faith when I think at hominem attacks are being made in the
way that you've just made towards Jackie, because I think its us right.
So you guys have got me every name of the book. Are two days
straight? And I make one joke about a wine mom. I said,
the wine moms are welcome, and here you are. And so you want
to deflect to that, Let's talk about the Old Testament. So look at
this. This is what they do. Let's talk about the Old Testament.
Does it teach the tryout or not? Are you a Catholic? Oh?
He left? This is what these people do. So I can't even say
all the crap they've called me for two days straight on Twitter, which I
don't care. I think it's funny. That's why I offer them to come
and debate, and what does he do? He shows up with the I'm
so British and started talking about his talk. Say Christy, I mean this
is a great display of the modus operandi of the average Roman Catholic. Go
ahead, say Christy, hello jar Yeah, yeah, oh my good.
Yeah. I was just wondering, do you think it's a good strategy to,
uh, Derek Catholics to come on it and block like one hundred people
at the same time. Yeah, but it's a good strategy to laugh like
that when you try your talk. All right, can you take your retainer
out if you're gonna make an argument that's I have a yeah, yeah,
but you understand that, uh, those are all people that I have debated
for the most part. Yeah, Christian Wagner as well, blocking him and
unblocking him five times with an hour. Yeah, because five times and no
one time within an hour, because I offered him to come and he declined,
no, it wasn't. He showed multiple proof multiple times. You blocked
him and then unblocked him, and they commented on his post. No,
I didn't know you can still you can comment on block people, dummy.
You didn't know that you know that you can do that on Twitter now.
And by the way, what does this even prove? Do you have an
argument? So Wagner declined to come, you have an argument? What you
want to? So you don't actually have an argument. You just came to
whine and bitch about Twitter games. It's really funny, isn't it, because
you guys don't have arguments. Did you got you got covid? There's a
lot, there's a good covida stop there. I just think this is yeah,
no argument exactly, Alex Wagner declined. I have the tweet popped up
showing that he wouldn't come. So this is all the games that these people
play. What's up, Alex? This is why I debated. So you
see why they get blocked. This is how they act. They get blocked
and then they act like I won't debate them because they act like kids.
Alex, what's up? It's up? It's just started pop on see what
was going on? So I don't really have much of a comment on the
whole try and discussion. I just uh, but yeah, I guess I
guess what what you hosted? Like I show the church fathers, Uh,
you know what with what they talked about as far as try it does seem
pretty convincing. But yeah, I mean, but I guess it's not even
a controversial issue. It's not even a controversial issue. Yeah, so I
mean, yeah, but yeah, either way, I mean, I don't
know. It seems like everyone just kind of gets gets up a little up
set, you know, and feels it feels like they're I don't know,
they're physicians being challenged. But well, of course, but that that's why,
that's why, I mean, you either love what's true. By the
way, to the person in the chat here saying that this was all a
bunch of b s oh, I'm out, poor you. Yeah, you
gotta run away. Yeah, here's the here's the link. I I unblocked
Pine Suck, I unblocked Wagner and they wouldn't come. Yeah, Jacob,
hi, can you hear me? So first thing, I want to say
that Christ is king, So hello everyone, And I just want to say
that I became Christian like this September. So I'm not the most knowledgeable in
this topic, but I don't understand, like, what's your Your argument is
that the Catholics aren't real Christians or no, it's it's it's not authentic Christianity
correct as a cult. Okay, so what are you? Are you Orthodox
or are protesting Orthodoxy? Okay? So for me, my whole family were
Catholics. I'm a Slovakian, so English is not my first language. So
so my whole family is Catholic, right, and I've been kind of brought
up with it. But i became really like a Christian only just in September,
So I'm not the most knowledgeable, but I would say that Catholics are
the ones that actually stick to the faith the closest. Also with Orthodox people,
so I don't so if they if they have mutually exclusive doctrines, how
can they both have the same faith that they're sticking to. Do you think
that praying together with Muslims towards Mecca is the same faith as the Church of
a thousand years ago? I don't really think there are Catholics that pray with
Muslims. Oh really, you haven't seen the popes doing that in the last
two decades. Okay, so my thing you just said, hold on,
you just said they don't do that. I saw pope dancing with transgenders.
No, no, no, no, no, no. Both Benedict and
Francis praying in the mosques towards Mecca. You just said that didn't happen.
That's my fault that I didn't know. But can I just explain my opinion
on the veil hold on? Is that the same faith as the church that's
calling Crusades a thousand years ago? I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say that's
true. Yeah, oh so then it's not the same thing. Well,
my belief is that the Vatican is at the pinnacle of the Catholic Church.
Of course I'm a Christian, that's not everybody knows that. Everyone knows that
man that's like Catholic one on one, So what do you mean? Of
course it's the kindag with the Roman Church. Is the Roman Church, but
the Vatican is filled with Jesuits, and I'm not the Jesuits. I'm a
Catholic. I don't take the same oath as them. Well, what does
that have to do? What does that have to do with the pope praying
inside the moss towards Macca. I'm just saying that not everything that popes does
Catholics need to follow. Like I'm a Catholic, but I well, why
do you think let me ask you a question, why do you think he
did that? Though? Do you think there's any Catholic doctrines that or documents
that might back him up doing that? M that's a good question. Like,
man, I don't know, Like I don't really like the book that
we have right now, but I'm I'm not a liberal, like I respect
my leaders. I respect him as the leader of the Catholic Church, right
even though I don't agree with the many things that they do. I don't
agree with Jesuits, like they take a Jesuit oath like that that has nothing
to do with Christ. But I believe. Well, then, so does
that mean that you reject the Second Vatican Council's document and teaching at Nostra tate
that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God together and that they both share the
faith of Abraham. Well, I definitely disagree with this, that all the
Abrahamic faiths worship the same God. So you have a Christian impetus there,
But yet your dogmatic teachings of your own papal church deny that. So which
one are you going to choose? Have you heard of? No? Not?
Really? Okay, this the document on the screen. You should look
it up. That's hate okay, a vaticantue document. Yeah, you can
also look up LUMININGENTM sixteen, which says the same thing. Yeah. Like,
look, I'm not trying to be mean, but we're going to go
to pinesapp because he wants to talk Pine Sap. You want to talk about
a pistemology, I'd like to Hey, J can you hear me? Yep?
Oh, let's go, man. How's it going good? Do you
want to talk about epistemology? Oh? Sure? I mean I'm more of
an ecclesiology guy, to be honest. I can try covering epistemology though.
Yeah. I just think that if a classical foundationalists tomistic epistemology fails, then
the whole Roman Caloic system fails. Now explain what necessarily your view of our
vue is? Well? For example, John Paul the Second in the Fetus
at Ratio defines now theology as reasoning about God without and in no way referencing
divine revelation. So this is what led the Roman Catholic Church to dogmatize the
idea, particularly that what natural theology is is precise to that right reasoning about
God without any reference to divine revelation. That seems to assume and presuppose that
you're a foundationalist. I've never heard of Roman Catholicy that's not a foundationalist.
So that means that things like the peripatetic axiom, which Aquina says he agrees
with, or the idea in Aristotle that what is better known by us versus
what is better known in itself from posterior analytics or prior analytics or physics,
et cetera. That those are kind of self evident axioms. That seems to
me to be pretty uncontroversial or not even contentious in the Roman Catholic world.
Oh gotcha, yeah, I immittally, I'll be fully honest with you.
Like I said, I'm not much of a study or study or of epistemology.
I kind of talk about its relation to ecclesiology a little bit, but
I'm not I'm not too well versed yet with like what Saint John Paul of
the Second or Saint Thomas quin has wrote on that topic. I'm I'm more
about covering sort of the you know, evidences for papal primacy or sort of
the fair enough but I mean so, I mean you said evidence is like
evidence as would go along with evidentialism. So in other words, whatn't this
what didn't this point kind of go more fundamental than arguing the ecclesiology. I
suppose it would. I mean I tend to just sort of try and look
at history and look at you know, can Catholic beliefs, right, Can
say Vatican One, for instance, be defended in the first century? Well,
yeah, the first century, but the first millennium? And uh,
you know what evidences do we have from say, the early Church fathers,
the early Church writers both Eastern and Western that kind of support that view.
What do you think of the Chiad and Alexandria documents? Well, I think
those documents are not, you know, magisterial pronouncements. But even if I
grant that they are, I think they're meant to be more conceliatory. I'm
trying to look for the word I know you mean towards the East written right,
Yeah, not meant really to be like an apologetical writing that sort of
defends our position, but more so a document that is trying to sort of
come to a meeting in the middle, if you will, in order to
establish sort of a more ecumenical dialog. I think that is what. I
think. You're absolutely correct, that's what those documents are saying. I guess
I'm just curious, like even if they're not magisterial, like they still have
papal approval, and if they are essentially approved by the Vatican with being these
official commissions, like if they're admitting things like chi Ad does the very bottom
that Rome didn't exercise universal premiscy in the first millennium, Like, how is
that not a denial of Vatican One. What I would say is is I
would go back to Father sylvest Hevaries the Church of Christ, where he talks
about sort of the you know, universal jurisdiction that the papacy has, being
a power that the pope has always had, but not necessarily a power that
always needs to be exercised. So what that wouldn't be undercut the arguments that
you guys make from Clement or from Honorius, assuming from Celestine and others not
necessarily. The reason why I say that is because, you know, the
pope really sort of and I don't mean this in the way that Vatican One
would anathematize like always just a supervisor or something like that, right, but
in a manner of having this universal jurisdiction versus how he exercises it, the
pope doesn't need to be sort of an autocrat that takes away the role of
the local bishop. Even remarked about by Blessed Pies the knife around his papacy
and around Vatican One, especially after the German bishops. This is in doctor
ed Szhinsky's work on the pape Seed. The German bishop sent him a document
or a pronouncement about how Vatican One did not essentially create like what Saint Gregory
the Great would have, you know, remarked as the universal bishop, this
idea that like all bishops are not somehow like true successors of the apostles,
they don't have their own sort of Yeah, I'm aware of what you're talking
about, and I have the Sashensky book here with me. But what I'm
getting at though, is that you said that it may it need not be
exercised. But the document actually says that the Roman bishop did not exercise canonical
authority over the churches of the East. But you're saying that, Well,
my distinction there would be that it's a power but it's not necessarily exercised.
So wait a minute, was it exercise in the first millennium or was it
a power he had and he didn't exercise. I think there might be some
confusion over what I was saying. I was not saying that he didn't exercise
it at all. I was just saying, it's not a power that he
needed to necessarily always exercise unless it was unless it was absolutely necessary to.
Because there were function of stay a patriarch or a local bishop. Is that
of course he'd be controlling his diocese, he'd be controlling his area of jurisdiction.
So this paper he approved document is incorrect. Well, I mean,
i'd have to see the specific passage there. I mean, it's on the
screen right here. You're not you haven't read shady, I mean I've I've
glanced over it. I'm not. I mean, this is a famous passage
that multiple even phdu Roman Catholics at the time when it came out, admitted
that this really undoes vaticant one. I I highly doubt that, and I
think quite a bit of people have actually written quite quite the opposite. Okay,
but here's the thing about right, and that's fair that's fair. That's
fair. No, I understand that. But whether this document is apologetic or
acumenist in its motivation really says nothing about whether or not it's an error.
That's pretty significant if this is a paperly approved commission. But the reason I
always go to epistemology in this at this point in the discussion is that you
said, well, it's not really a magisterial document. I don't really have
to put that into the tier or the bins of uh, you know,
necessary conscience binding documents or whatever. How is the Roman Catholic? Do you
sort out between all the different documents, papal teachings and so forth. How
do you know that you're putting them in the right bins? If you've got
extraordinary Magisterium, Universal ordinary Magisterium and ordinary teaching. How is an individual Roman
Catholic? Do you know that you're actually interpreting this massive documents correctly? Well?
I know that I'm interpreting correctly them correctly based on the authority that they're
issued with. I mean, doctor John Joy writes pretty extensively about when certain
uh so hold on? So is doctor John Joy infallible? Didn't say that
he was? Okay? So you're going so to get the so to get
the criteria, you go into a fallible source. I don't think it's a
fallible source necessarily is now infallible doctor joys and fallible understanding? Is doctor Joy
infallible? Is this book infallible? I never said that it was my friend.
Oh, so he's not an infallible source. So the very criteria is
derived from a non infallible source. I mean the argument that you're trying to
make is essentially if I'm using any book to sort of have an understanding of
No, it's it's actually an epistemic contradicts the view of the church. No,
no, it's not. It's not I'm not arguing to contradict the Church.
No, I'm arguing that you don't have a consistent epistemic principle to know
clearly and from which source you're deriving the dogmas and putting him in the right
bins because you have a giant mass of tens of thousands of pages potentially right
that would count as part of quote Catholic teaching. And so you're saying that,
well, I go to doctor Bill Joy or whatever his name is to
pull out, uh, these principles but his book is fallible. So wait
a minute, So where's the infallible list of the infall dogmas? The infallible
list of the infallible dogmas again comes from the level at whishments, So there's
not a list. So there's not a list. There's not a list all
all doctors, so there's not a list. Is here? So you have
three criteria and then you're like a Protestant. Yeah, you have three criteria
from a from a fallible book, and then you're like a Protestant going through
tens of thousands of pages to put in the right bin. Bad argument,
my friend, he's drunk. He's not a bad argument. It's a devastating
argument to your position because you don't know penstemology and from documents, like it
doesn't matter. So how do you know that he how do you know he
drew them from the right documents? That's begging the question, that's circular.
He's you have been it. He's fallible. What you're trying to argue suddenly
is that I, as a Catholic, have to turn off my brain.
No, yeah, you know you don't have a consistent epistemology. No,
the argument is that you don't have a consistent of pistemology and you just prove
it. What are you even saying right now? Yeah? Exactly, exactly,
yeah exactly. So as you see how you got mad once he got
cornered. Oh yeah, yeah, you said, what am I even saying?
Bad guy? And now you're going to the personal attacks, personal attacks,
big dog. You just keep interrupting and stuff like, no, you're
not you're not answering the question because you've got you've got calling a basic circular
fallacy about your pistemology. All I said is that doctor John is his book
infallible, is his book infallible is an infallible source. You went to a
fallible source. It is what you're saying. It's what I'm saying, because
you you admitted the book is fallible. You admitted the book is valible.
You admitted the book as fallible. So you're just begging the question. So
let me guess if I read Urine, ask if I read Cyprian. It
doesn't matter because you don't have a coherent epistemology. It doesn't matter. You
don't have a coherent epistemology, is the point. Okay, you're just kind
of screaming to the void. At this point, I'm screaming in the void.
You went, do you want me to you want me to explain it
to you for the fourth time? Do you want me? Do you want
me to explain it for the fourth time to you? Science? That's a
fallible book. But yeah, that's begging the question because it's a foul.
You don't know that you have the right things in the book that are infallible.
That's the point. But here's the thing. Even if I was to
make an error as a Catholic, it would not be a damnable error because
that you don't even know that maybe it is. That's begging the question.
You're just assuming that what's your because you don't have an epistemic criteria. You
don't have an epistemic criteria that's consistent. You don't have an epistemic criteria that's
consistent. That's the point, Catholic for me. Here he goes here,
he goes to the personal attacks. Look at this. You were barely a
Catholic. You were barely a Catholic. Basic attacks. When he melts,
man, dude, you were just like an angry little man. Yeah,
I'm an angry little man. He got cornered. Everybody saw his dumb circular
argument and then he immediately goes to the personal attacks. Did I say anything
about him personally? I kept calling him back to the basic point and he
starts calling me an angry little man. No, you guys are scumbacks,
straight up dishonest cults. You're dishonest cult members. That's the champion Pine Suck
that they all wanted me to debate so bad. What's up? Oh,
hey, what's up? Man? I'm not exactly a cam just I didn't
realize that's what I just thought. That was hilarious. I don't understand the
topic, might bed. I didn't mean to push the button from a point
of view. So you noticed I kept calling him back to the point on
epistemology, and he immediately went to a personal attack. Everybody saw that I
didn't say anything mean to him. Yeah, that was pretty embarrassing on this
It was embarrassing, and Roman Catholics are embarrassing and I will keep embarrassing them
because this is all they do. Yeah. Yeah, so people in the
chat, why don't you come on? You know, he didn't you know,
he didn't win that debate. You guys are such liars. He couldn't
answer a basic epistemological question. He couldn't give me what the dogmas are.
He said, well, there's three criteria and go to doctor Bill Joy's book.
Yeah, that's begging the question. Doctor Bill Joyce fallible. So I'm
going to a fallible source to have picked out the three infallible criteria. And
that's why he got so mad and went to personal attacks. Hey, you
guys know he didn't win. You're full of it. He's got his goons
in the chat. Any one of you can come on here. Yeah,
what's this place? Will behave from a lot of these Catholics, and me
being one, just saws it brings shame to me honestly and in a way,
Well do you why would you be a Roman Catholic? Well that's the
thing. And and we've talked before, Jay, and it's nice to speak
with you again, But this is the thing. I'm honestly considering the fact
that Roman Cantholicism is just it's just a dead end faith, like there's no
hope for it in the future. What it is now is what's what it's
going to be like for the rest of the time. And yeah, you're
not going to get a trad pope. First of all, Francis and his
predecessors have already filled the cardinal the electors with liberals. Yeah, yeah,
exactly, And this is why a lot of these Catholics are coping so hard
and every single day. That's why they're acting that they'll have Yeah, and
honestly, I probably am gonna start thinking about maybe converting because at this point
I have no faith, excuse me, no faith that that Cautholicism can even
be saved at this point. No, yeah, I agree, and I
appreciate those comments to the people talking smack in the chat again, well,
I'll just go yold over no, no, no, you keep getting pulled
back to the thing in question, And if you can't answer the thing in
question, that's the point here. We got another one. His whole thing
is built on a faulty epistemology. That's why I'm gonna go to the epistemological
argument. Go ahead, go ahead, Saint Bernard, Can you hear me?
Yep. So I'm obviously not very knowledgeable on this. So I was
wondering if you could sort of try to convince me your Protestant right, No,
I'm Orthodox Orthodox, so Could you try to convince me of pretending from
a view that I know nothing about the faith? Can you try to convince
me of the objectively points where Orthodoxy is better than Catholicism. Yeah, I
mean the Orthodox Church has maintained the correct doctrine of the Trinity. The Orthodox
Church has maintained the practice of the Early Church of fasting and keeping the liturgy
reverent. The Novus Orto is Protestant and not reverent. The Orthodox Church has
not accepted the Vatican to the idea that Muslims and Jews and Christians all worship
the same God, and Ostratate teaches that is writer on the screen. These
things alone are pretty much enough to show you right away that the Papal Church
is a cult. Yeah, you keep on saying that it's a cult.
What kind of things indicated to you that it's a cult, Because although the
Novus orger Mass may seem like a bit modernist to you, it doesn't necessarily
mean that it's cult. To their cult aspect is the manifestation of all the
people acting out and acting like complete lunatics who can't reasonably talk through their position.
So I'll try to try to reasonably talk too much. Ill let me
give another example of that cult aspect. A lot of times with a lot
of these people, when it comes down to these issues, when they get
into the actual documents of their church and the doctrines, they end up fleeing
to fatama and mysticism. That's also, in my view, a cultic element,
because once the intellectual aspect of it collapses, then they turn to the
mysticism. That's cool. I think you're confusing it slowly, because Catholicism does
permit a wide range of views on a variety of topics. So it's not
necessarily that they're fleeing towards mysticism. It's just that they're choosing to ignore certain
dogmas of the Church. For example, predestination is one of the areas where
the Church permits a wide range of topics, and that's why the church necessitates
sometimes that it needs to be somewhat okay. But but that doesn't really have
anything to do with what we're talking about today, which is topics like the
Vatican essentially saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. That's simply not
true. No, But I'm getting around to my point, which is saying
that the Church is not infallible in all the things that it says. It's
infallible in its ecumenical council teaching, and this isn't an ecumenical council. Yeah,
I would say that that's correct. But well, then you just contradicted
because you said that you don't. So you do think that Catholics and Muslims
worship the same God. I think that's a complicated issue. Not really,
I mean, do Muslims think that you worship the same God as they do?
No? Okay, so why is it complicated? I'm clearly autumnized up
here and all that. Yeah, I mean, Muslims don't believe in the
Trinity, and they hate the idea of the Trinity and the deed of Christ.
So they will very clearly in life you on whether you worship the same
God as they do in a in a not so friendly way. Simon Simon
of Trent, Hello, yep, hear, yes, sir? All right?
Uh, why do you have block blocked? What's the name Wagner?
In those plastic answers? You also have dogs. I already explained that in
the first twenty minutes. Do you have an argument or not? Yeah,
yeah, I have an argument. But the thing is, like you,
I unblocked him and invited. I unblocked him, unblocked. Dude, I
listen, you choose to Are you listening? Are you listening? If you
beat them? Beat them? Hey, bro, the stream, Bro,
you barely got on your hey hold on, I say again, Bro,
just straight up you just more chiefs Abro? Could you bring me more chiefs?
I want one more and three brito. Bro. See what they do.
This is all they can do is get on here and yell and cuss.
They're like thirteen year olds. I love it. Yeah, keep it
up, Roman Catholics, keep it up. Good job, Peter, more
chiefs Abro. Julian Moore chieves. Yeah, I already answered everything. He
brought up. The people that he's talking about. I unblocked and brought them
on. We brought pineesep on. He couldn't answer the argument. Go ahead,
Peter. You know what. I'm mute, Jay, I'm looking forward
to your impression of me in a few seconds here. I'm just curious,
uh, your epistemic foundation. How is it that you interpret whether it's a
scripture or I don't know what the Orthodox equivalent of the modern councils is so,
I know there's some make critical councils. How do you interpret that stuff?
What's your epistemological Well, it's just simply out of hand reject classical foundationalism.
I don't think it makes any sense. It's not defensible because it all
relies on self evidence. And can you tell me prove to me something of
self evident in your system. I'm not sure how you answered my question there.
I'm asking how do you use Yeah, so I can say things like,
we have a different epistemology. We have the idea of a direct perception
of God through the news, the heart. We believe in more of a
coherence view of truth rather than a foundationalist view. So I'm not saying that
I believe everything that a coherentist believes in some secular sense, but I'm saying
more of a holistic epistemology, that there's not really anything that's a self evident
maxim or foundation that doesn't presuppose other things. So I believe in more like
a web view of beliefs rather than a foundationalist guit. So like when you
go to scripture, when you're looking at the Old Testament, you're deciding that
like Abraham was in fact dealing with like a triad God or something like that.
Like, how do you know you're reading that? Right? Well,
I believe ultimately the Holy Spirit is who teaches the individual. You sound like
a Protestant. Interesting, right, yeah, you understand that, But you
say that too as a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholics think that the final
arbiter for the individual is the Holy Spirit teaching. I don't say that as
a Roman Catholic. Well, you actually your church does teach that. In
fact, that Borrow argues that all the time, you didn't know that.
No, I'm a Protestant, so Protestant, Yeah, yeah, excuse me,
So Saint Simmon the New Theologian teaches this. But that is a different
question from whether or not epistemic wholism is true versus foundationalism. Yeah, like,
I can you you're telling me that like you use a web or something
like that. So that the way that that's different. Yeah, the way
it's different is that we would say that whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic,
everybody at the at the end of the day agrees that the way the individual
comes to know is through the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Where we all
disagree is the means that are used. So the Roman Catholic thinks the ultimate
means are the magisterium and the Pope. The Orthodox thinks that the means are
not restricted to something like that in some juridical way. But that's actually the
totality of the faith, the direct experience of God through the Church, the
liturgy of the Sacraments, the lives of the saints, the Church fathers,
like comunical councils, et cetera. The Protestant thinks that the individual is deciphering
this basically mainly through the Bible alone. So where we differ is the means,
not the you know, final authority of the Holy Spirit. So the
question then is, well, who has the correct means here? What is
the what is the traditional Christian teaching of the means of knowing God? So
what's interesting to me is like, when you're going against the Catholic Church here
using scripture as your means to show that like there's an internal contradiction, right,
would you use scripture in attempting to notice like an internal contradiction between like
an Orthodox council and scripture. Do you think that's possible or is it not
possible for them to contradict? No, I don't think the scriptures and the
Council's contradict. But do you think it's possible for them to contradict? No,
it would it would not make sense in my paradigm. That'd be like
saying, is it possible that Jesus didn't exist? Well, I would kind
of undo my entire paradigm. So is in that the same with the Roman
Catholics? Here that like you're assuming your paradigm and arguing against them. Do
you not understand that you can actually debate between paradigms by comparing the paradigms to
see which ones are coherent and can give account for their presuppositions. That's what
trans and augmentation is. Yeah, but what again, what you're doing here
is like you're saying that, like, Scripture could find a contradiction in the
Roman Catholic paradigm, but it can't find a contradiction in my paradigm. Do
you see what's weird about that? No, there's nothing weird about it because
it's two different systems. So the problems in their system are not going to
be mirrored in the same for my system. For example, if the papacy
contradicts itself, that's a contract, that's a that's a devastating thing to that
whole system. If the patriarch of Constantinople contradicts himself and becomes a heretic,
that's not devastating to my system because I've have a totally different ecclesiology. So
the nature of the system will be the issue that determines whether or not the
question is devastating or not. But example, he just sees there as an
example of practice. So you're saying, like in practice, like I can
find a contradiction in the Roman system. But again, in the Roman system,
it doesn't matter whether it's in practice or whether it's the scripture contradicting the
papacy. Any contradiction would invalidate the system. Well, that's true, but
again, like in principle, the system itself doesn't admit the contradiction, just
like your system doesn't. Like, that's the whole point when you're saying that
in print that you can't be contradicted by sure, But then you're turning to
the Catholic and you're saying, to the Catholic, I'm just doing I'm doing
internal criticctic. No, I'm doing I'm doing an internal critique of their position
on their own grounds. You can try the internal critique on my position as
well, but you're not going to find a contradiction. That's the difference.
My mind does not contradict. There's does That's that's the whole point. So
you would say that, like the ecumenical councils would agree with you that there's
a contradiction here, because isn't that Didn't you just tell me their system is
that the ecumenical councils are the deciding factor. No, I said, My
system is church fathers, ecumenical councils, liturgy, lives of the saints,
all of those things go into you say, you're an internal critique, which
means you have to use of their system. Dude, Yeah, yeah,
you so you would have to use their system. Yeah. Did you not
hear me do that with the guy about classical foundationalism? That was the whole
point. But if to them, the it doesn't matter whether that's to it
doesn't matter if it's a contradiction. They don't get to just say, well,
well I don't accept it as a contract. It does it contradictions aren't
system relative. I mean, I don't know if it's the ecumenical council is
apparently the authority for them, and so like if you know the pope is
no, they're not, that's not even you don't even know their position.
The Pope is the authority, not the ecminical councils. That's about I think
it's both like it no, it's actually not. It's actually that the Pope
is above the ecumenical councils and the only thing that makes an ecumenical council that
is the fiat of the Pope. All right, well, I don't tell
you. It seems to me that like you're at the same time saying like
I'm going to critique within their system, but then also like you're denying their
counsels interpretations of these things, like the councils. I don't even think you
you're not even understanding what the argument even is. Like if if Roman Catholicism
is a system that's structured in a certain way such that any dogmatic teaching of
the papacy cannot contradict previous teaching, if I show a contradiction that invalidates that
system, It's that simple. Yeah, if you show a contradiction and then
show that like can buy the magisterium they've accepted the correction when we've already done
that with I'll give one example right here. Noser Tate says that Muslims and
Christians and Jews all worship the same God. A thousand years ago they called
crusades against the Muslims. Now the pope goes in praise and moss towards Macca.
That's a contradiction. Again, Like, it seems like you have to
find an ecumenical council that says that that's a contradiction. But I just cited
the vacumenical council. Do you not see that the damn document is on the
screen, dude, But the ecumenical council didn't say that. Yes it does.
It's on the screen in front of your facy. Yes it does.
It talks. It talks about Benedict the sixteenth man. What are you talking
about? All right? Well, can you have you read? Do you
know what nosra tat is? I'm hop off I gotta go. Oh so
you don't know even know what nos for tati is? That must be it.
I don't know, because I gotta go. I'll talk you. Oh,
you've got to go, right, So he's got to go as soon
as gets pinned down. Yeah, what'st I'm gonna here goes still repeat my
name? What is no Tat? I'm gonna head out. If you find
it's on the screen. What do you mean if I find it it's on
the screen for you? Nora tat lumagentium sixteen. Again, let's if you
find an example of it's on the screen. That is it's that is an
You don't understand that's an ecum Do you understand that's an ecumenical council? Man?
I want to do you understand that that's an ecumenical council? Does it
talk about any of the sixteenth in there? Are you this dumb? It's
teaching the thing that he's acting on interpreted by whom oh m hm yeah exactly,
yeah, exactly. See, it's interpreted by him. Notice the uh
never ending circle here. Now I can't go and cite his ecumenical councils because
it's interpreted by who. Oh it's me. So once he gets pinned down,
he didn't really he didn't know what nos Trette was. He didn't know
what Lumgentium was when it's on the freaking screen from Vatican too. That's ec
Medical Council. What a bunch of clowns. And he's not even Catholic,
He's a freaking Protestant. Why is he trying to argue the Catholic position doesn't
even know their documents? And m I just wanted to say a little something
about what you're talking about here, because for the last couple of weeks and
I've been studying a bit about Romantholicism. I read the Sishinski's Philioquay book and
I got a lot of that, and I watched a couple of the Wagoner
debates with some other Orthodox people, and I came to a conclusion that the
Church of Aquinas and the Church of Poopius, of the Church, the Church
of Lombard and the Crusades, it doesn't anymore. And the Roman Catholics that
come online talking about Hi, the church He's going to some high go through
this renovation where it's going to go back to what it was before Vatican Two.
It just seems so unrealistic. Warping. Yeah, yeah, exactly yesterday,
I think it was yesterday, the day before I watched a video I
think it was put out by this channel called Orthodox Church, and it was
just a liturgical comparison between like certain patriarchal churches versus the Vatican in Rome under
Francis. And the way that some Roman Catholic Catholics will get out of the
liturgical abuse argument is just to say, well, this is going on in
some strange church out there, some weird priests somewhere. Yeah. Yeah,
And I was watching this video and I saw like the liturgy in Russia and
it was very it was it looked a lot like it should and then it
cut to the Vatican and Pop Francis was here and it was literally a bunch
of like a Spanish or Mexican choir singing a folks song during the liturgy,
and my mouth was dropped. I was thinking to myself, High on Earth,
can these trots think that there's ever any going to be any salvation for
the Roman Church because of the stuff that's going on in m This is why
they act out the way they do. They deep down know that it's not
going to be fixed because the cardinals are stacked with a bunch of libs,
and so they're just acting out and spurgging out because they're they're losing their minds.
Their system has collapsed. The only people left in that system are like
people that are totally ignorant or authority worshipers or weird skittled LARPers on the internet.
So, by the way, this is not this is also people understand
that it's actually a pote Francis that oversaw a puppet mouse. I don't know
if people know that. Have you seen that? I think I have.
Yeah, there's a one with where he's performers around him. Yeah no,
no, no, no, an actual puppet mass, not not just not
just him out the ceremony where he's uh got like a bunch of uh clown
troop around him. Let me find you the actual papal puppet mass Let me
scroll back to it here. Okay, well, uh, another thing is
just that you know these trods like uh, that group right there, you
know, like Wagner and all them. I don't really watch them a lot,
but they seem to be operating in a reality that just isn't there anymore.
They they they talk about tumism a lot, and I'm always thinking,
okay, what is the tomistic system That's what I was gonna say. Yeah,
they threw it. They threw it, Like Aquina says, I think
he's still a doctor of their church, right, but they don't even believe
in tumism anymore. And it's it's it's kind of like I think you made
a point of saying that the Roman Church after the after the Second into this,
just into the second landing, but kem more of a worldly apparatust than
anything spiritual, and it kind it's just it just be a big thank you
know, man, Everything going on in room today is the consequences of that.
They've stirred up and ravished Europe to the point where no Europe just completely
rejects everything Gothlic cares it apart because of everything that they put you it's an
atheism factory. Why would we not think that clown mosses are an atheism factory.
So here's Pope Francis right here officiating his puppet mouse. You know,
there's Pinocchio there, there's Jesus and the puppet mass. Yeah exactly. It's
like one uh, one mistake that I appreciate that, yeah, one mistake
that ah Jackie wants to come back. What's up one Alexandrian heretical action a
J. I'm here as the group's secretary. Again, I think that you
might have accidentally removed Peter from the space. I removed him. What the
follow up question was the source of interpretation? Do you have an answer for
that? So wait a minute. You think that as a Roman Catholic you
can't or as anybody else that you can't go and read the documents from the
ecumenical councils, I have to go to another interpreter. I'm not here to
debate on his beat that I'll relay the message from the Protestant. That was
his question. Okay, thank the Martin, we got ragged the inn.
Who what's up? Hey? Man? It's like cool to see you here
fighting with the ignorance of the people. Glood to stumble on this and your
work seems perfect. It's the flow from the YouTube drove me here. And
I can see that people on x or Twitter cannot see the life feed.
I have double monitors so I can have in. Okay, do you have
a do you have a question or a topic you want better? What what's
up? Okay? So let's see what would be the binding Like you said
about this web, thinking about this this in the web way, What would
be the proper solution for people to not divide themselves but find themselves in common
with those threads in this web, if you know what I mean. Honestly,
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't mean to be mean,
but tonight today's topic isn't really supposed to be tag although I will go into
that if that's the only thing that people want to talk about, But I'm
not sure what you mean about common threads in that? King Lasar Hello,
Yeah, what's up? Yeah? I just firstly, I did have a
question. I don't know if this will fit, but it's about orthodox ecclesiology
that I've just been looking into that I couldn't flint an answer, and I
figured you'd probably have a quick response for it. But first of all,
I just wanted to say that I was looking forward to seeing people more educated
than me attempt to speak about the Roman Catholic position, but just simply,
no one is willing to address the issues, and I don't know what it
is, and I don't know if it's an attempt. A lot of them,
I know they do accept Vatican Two, and I'm not sure if you're
aware, but Pope clicks this the third I believed officially and infallibly taught that
Islam is paganism. So it's a clear contradiction. Yeah, yeah, it's
it's a clear contradiction of the document. I don't know if you know we're
willing to accept that or whatever. So I will say I'm disappointed in the
turnout of the quote whatever. Roman Catholics who have come to debate. My
question for you was, just if a patriarch in because they all have equal
authority in the Orthodox system, right, if a patriarch were to teach heresy
or apostasize, where's the onus for the you know, the expulsion out of
the body of the church is it? Does it have to be taught by
a certain number of patriarchs or is a thing to do with the pentarchy or
how does that function? No? I think usually ask me. I think
one thing that people misunderstand about Orthodoxy, especially when it comes to these kinds
of issues, is that most of this stuff is local. So most things
are decentralized in the Orthodox Church, and pretty much everything like that happens at
a local synodal level as well. So the church is run by synods.
So if a bishop or a priest or a person was excommunicated, most of
the time that happens in a synod. If it's somebody more a prominent,
like a patriarch, then that usually takes more time, and it takes more
of a gathering of support from other bishops and other patriarchs to make that move.
That's usually what you see in the first thousand years of the church,
where in many cases we have many patriarchates and many bishops doing that very thing.
Going into schism, there's removal of communion. So the things that people
point to in the modern Orthodox Church, like the schism between how are the
emerging schism between a Yeah, is actually fairly common in the first thousand years
of Christianity. I see, it just takes longer, right, right,
And do you think a good resource, like an historical example that would be
the Oriental I'm not aware of their split, but eventually I assume that the
Eastern Orthodox basically agreed that they are Neophicites, I think, right, so
that they aren't a part of your church. Yeah, They're a little more
complicated because there's a lot of history of like the Jacobites, for example,
that was one guy later on basically suddenly ordaining like dozens and dozens of priests
and bishops out of nowhere. And that's pretty late in the game, after
there had already been a severance at Epicis and Calcedon, so there's kind of
like a long, protracted, difficult history with them. There was a stempt
to reconcile at the Fifth Council with all of the Monophysites, which wasn't very
successful, but it did solidify our dogma of and I apostatize and all that.
So I would say, you know, it really began ends at Ephesus,
but then it uh you know, continues into the Fifth Council and the
Six Council as well, because the six Council is really two wills and two
energies, is against the Monothelites, who are versions of Monopsides. I see,
So do you think, But if there were this is a little bit
more I don't know if you would agree, but it's a little bit more
innate. But if you have someone like a lunatic, like let's say,
the patriarch of Constantinople preyed in a musque Alla Prancis you know, like what
would happen, you know what I mean, Well, they're supposed to be
canonically rejected. That in other words, the ancient canons, for example,
which are accepted at Trollo, and I think the Six Council will say that
if you pray in a synagogue, you're excommunicator. So it's a fact I
think you're supposed to be that. I mean, I'm not positive that we
would necessarily have the same like Latte sententia idea that later Latin canon law.
Yeah, yeah, the Catholic ideas. I think those are What usually happens
in the East is that at although an individual in a situation might have the
right to remove themselves from a bishop or a patriarch who openly started preaching heresy.
For example, when Nosuria started teaching heresy, a lot of people left
his church. They had the right to do that. But eventually, but
even even Cyril and people were considering the Storius still a representative of the church
until there was a sonodal condemnation I see. Okay, So basically, like
with the situation with MP and EP, like we're at the stage of canonical
discipline where there's a removal of communion. The next stage would be excommunication,
so it would get really really serious then. I mean, I'm not saying
it's not serious now, but it's like it's not full full severance, because
in the Orthodox view, there's like stages to this. It's not like a
blacker white thing. Okay, I see, all right, yeah, and
I definitely would Look, do you think that the example of Nestorius is a
good example because I looked in that a lot for Catholic ecclesiology in terms of
the situation with the current popes, you know, I won't get into it,
but the in terms of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, you think that would be
a good example to follow, like how Mystorius was eventually condemned. I think
yeah. I think again, there's like there's not a one size fits all
answer, because for example, if I'm at if I'm under some bishop and
I know directly that he's like continuing to pre cherite, then I would be
justified from leaving, right, But that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else in
the church knows what's going on, or that they're deprived of the grace of
the sacraments because they don't know yet. So there's I think there's a little
more leeway. There's a little more leeway in the Orthodox view about understanding that
it's not like a blackout, like everybody's grace is deprived. It's it's more
so public. When there's a public synodal rejection of the person is when we
would say that at that point you have to avoid that person. Does that
make sense? Yeah, It's definitely something I want to look into because it's
one of the it's like one of the major things I don't understand about Eastern
Orthodoxy because I have been, you know, submerged so much in the Roman
Catholic idea of having a pope that can phase the count. I don't know
if someone rejected that earlier, but yeah, you were right in saying that
it is the pope who gives the ecumenical council the authority. So I don't
know. Yeah, yeah, I mean there's probably not an easy uh.
John mcguckin's book is pretty good on Cyril and Nestorius in the whole history.
Like John, sorry, what was the last name? Mcguckan st. Cyril
of Alexander, the Christological controversy, the first one hundred and fifty pages is
the history of it, and then it goes into the christology of both of
them, and that really kind of gives us the whole picture and like where
the two Monophysites and Orthodox parted ways, assuming Nestorians and Orthodox party ways.
But it also will give insight into me Fsite monofice. I appreciate part,
so I'll definitely look into it. Also, want to say, looking forward
to the I think you Si mentioned a series much like I don't know if
you. I think you do know him though Sam Chamund has a series of
trinity in the Old Testament. I didn't know he did that. No,
Yeah, I really value that resource, especially in debating against Islam, because
that's the whole basis of continuity between our religions. You know, of the
Old you know, divorce it right, you can't really debate his loan anymore,
you know, Yeah exactly, I mean I think that and also to
appreciate that like that will also undercut the Jewish approach because I'd have been fallible.
You're missing the whole point of the argument. So Marco, do you
want to come and make an argument or do you just want to spam the
chat? I mean, it's ridiculous. Go ahead, Nick, It's like
they don't understand what an internal critique is. Go ahead, Nick, Oh,
sorry, I have a question. It's mostly I'm an Eastern Orthodox myself.
The question is in regards of different autocatholices, different different what autocephalist churches.
So when when there's there there are sometimes some awkward moments in history,
like for example, there was a brief moment where Georgian auto cathualist church was
absorbed into Russian one, then it re emerged again, and then first,
if I believe correctly, Greeks and then the Russians reinstated. I admit that
the autocatholic Is there any kind of dog mane in regard to the period like
let's say, in this weird in between period, like what happens to I
guess people who practice in the church, Like are they deprived of grace?
What happens in that moment? You know what? What? Who? How
would they be to private grace? Don't understand? So essentially, if if
it's what happens in between moments when like let's say a church is absorbed and
then it regains auto carefully, does it make sense? If not, then
absorbed by, absorbed by who. I guess it goes into some historic communition.
I guess it's natural. Sorry, it's okay, I just I'm not
I'm not sure. I don't know. Let's see Gian Como, that would
be good. I'm mute, gian Como, do you want to I am
mute. We'll just keep playing the papal puppet mass Jihan Como. Do you
want to speak or not? You're on? Good? On mute John Como
Roman Catholic dude, you got the Pope's flag in your bio. Do you
want to talk or not? Okay, don't talk whatever, U Marina?
Why are the tradcats in the chat not calling in? Marina? Do you
want to mute and talk? Ok? Marina? All right, she dropped
off. Joe. The topic is Catholicism. So that's our topic today.
Hey, can you hear me? Okay? So I grew up rooman Catholic,
and you know, I was told we're infallible, and just recently,
in the past couple of years, I've really been questioning everything because I'm twenty
three, so I've been paying a lot more attention the past four years.
Tavi is really wokeing up. And then as well, Nostra a Data just
recently learned about all that. How we are saying that the the Jews and
the Muslims worshiping the same God. And so then in addition to that,
Thatican to is the masculinizing the church. Did r Instance and Francis say that
the church was too masculine? Yeah, they're purposefully calling to demasculinize it.
That's their own words, right, nuns without habits. And then we have
two thousand years of recognizing the Jews is perditious in our mass, and then
they remove the words perdicious Jews. Yeah, now you have to say that
they're their elder brothers, and then they're still part of the Covenant exactly.
And it's we brought in aber Rabbi Abraham Herschel to write to help write Nostra
A Data. This is a Talmudic Jew who the Vatican too brought in to
help guide the council. Yeah, now tell that to the tridecats by the
way. All right, so I appreciate that, but we're going to move
on. Jay Goldman, Yeah, I'm mute, Jay, do you want
to talk? And I'm mute man. Are you there? Hello, Sarah,
what's up all right? How you doing? Brother? What's up all
right? Uh? I just kind have a question. How do you explain
the Lord allowing the Pope and the Catholic Church conquering America? The what conquering
America? All Right? That guy's trolling. He has to be trolling,
that's right, j hear me. So I'm looking into orthodoxy right now,
and I've just seen examples. Well, Catholics say that those examples of the
pope like deposing patriarchs and bishops and outside of his jurisdiction. How would you
explain that? Well, the fact that he does that doesn't mean that he
should have done that. If you look at the example of Saint Aaron as
he rebukes Pope Victor for doing that and Victor backs down. Okay, okay,
thank you. And not to be hostile or anything like that, but
I feel like if you allowed your opponents to speak, you know, like
an an attack their ideas, it'd be more credible. Well, but you
understand that the dude that came on a minute ago, for example, didn't
want to talk about or address the actual issue. So you think that I'm
talking over people when I'm pulling them back to the point that they're trying to
deflect away from. Yeah, thanks to Jay. Yeah. I mean the
conversation was fine with that guy until he didn't want to stay on topic and
wanted to avoid the very point I'm making. So people think I'm like,
oh, you just talk over people. No, if I keep pulling people
back, it's not just to talk over them, it's because they're not addressing
or dealing with the challenge. And that's a trick that people do in debates
where when they're pinned down or if there's something that's difficult, then what you
do is you go on a red herring chase, you go off, you
deflect. I mean, deflection is like classic debate technique. I just don't
let people deflect and then people so you're talking over and be mean beacon hello,
no car Yeah. Okay. By the way, I hope there's no
blood from earlier to say I didn't mean to offend you or anything. So
I had a quick question, since I'm currently discerning one of the most compelling
pieces of evidence I find that I haven't seen you discuss extensively, is that
there are sixty seven or maybe it was sixty six Lords miracles, and the
reason. One of the Catholic arguments I hear is that the miracles are not
just in isolation. There was an apparition that said these miracles were going to
happen in regards to a matter of church doctrine, and then they were scientifically
attested by modern doctors like the one that was on the sixty minutes interview I
watched that. How do you make sense of that personally? Yeah, I
don't accept any miracle claims as any proofs of anything in this regard because would
you say that Mary's supposed appearance at the Coptic Church ins Ito in Egypt,
which will see by giant crowds, does that prove an ophetism? I know
that some Catholics accept it, but others don't, and it's not recognized by
the Vaticans, So I'm not sure if it's relevant to that line of argument.
So wait a minute. So now it's only what the Vatican recognizes I
think. So that makes sense because the Vatican has a team that authenticates those
specifically, they got a team, they got a team on it. Okay,
uh So, But what I'm saying is that whether there's a Vatican team
on it or not. Like if I'm an office site comes to you and
says that Mary appeared at our church, so that proves our church, how
are you going to just how are you going to adjudicate between these? It's
not going to work by saying, oh, well there's a team in Rome
that's assigned to this, you know, the intereresting that's begging the question.
The point is that miracles alone are not going to prove or disprove any of
this, right, I agree. But the reason that I find the Lord's
one specifically compelling is because it isn't just like where some people claim they saw
Mary on the church. It's they have scientifically a test in Aria, Okay,
And so scientists go to Jerusalem and they observe and do documentaries and tests
on the Holy Fire. So you understand now it's just rival science claims.
That's true. I think I think rival science claims should probably play a part
into people's decisions. Yeah, I don't. I think this is ridiculous,
Like, how is this going to determine between what's the true and the false
faith? It's as silly. I mean, Paul and the other Christians did
signs and miracles have regulations. What does Galatians say, Uh, I can
not ask for signs, the only one who'll make what want? What does
relations one say? I don't know, I don't know, not familiar with
reglations. Want. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but like
this is very important for this topic. What does Paul say about signs and
wonders and apparitions? Uh? The only verse I know regarding signs and wonders
is the one where the only one he'll be given is the sign of Jonah.
Okay, Well, see, you need to be way more familiar with
your Bible than you do to try to investigate doctors and scientists investigating lords,
because Paul says in Romans one excusean Galationians one not to believe any apparition or
claim to miracle if it contradicts the dogmas that have been handed down by the
Apostles. So again, this very point shows that Roman Catholics and people interested
in Roman Catholicism way off base. You've got people out here don't know what
the triad means, they don't know what Galatians one says, but they're over
here trying to do scientific They got a ghostbuster's team in the Vatican that's on
the case of Lords. Come on, Joe trad Cat in the chat.
I don't know who, what your profile is, what is your profile name?
And I'll bring you on. I'm happy to bring you on because if
you're saying that the papas, the apostatizing becoming modernist is not pre Orthodoxy,
yeah, I'm pretty sure it does, because what else is the successor to
the Orthodox Church in the first thousand years? Go ahead, Joe, Yeah,
hijay, thanks for having me on. I just like I might have
like a quick question or two, but I also wanted to say, like
like coming into like the kind of like the Twitter drama that was happening like
in the hour or two leading up to the space, like like for any
of like the Roman Catholics that are here. I was there's like this pull
respector account and he's like he's got this, you know, he does like
all these AI images of Pope Francis to like make him look bad as He's
like, yeah, it's ridiculous, yeah exactly. And so it was like,
is he gonna do is he gonna do one of France? Is he
gonna do an Ai of Francis and the puppet Mass here with the Here's a
Pinocchio, Here's Pinocchio with Francis's puppet mass. Yeah, I mean we don't
we don't need Ai to show that stuff, but they need Ai to make
him look cool exactly. Yeah. But I just wanted to point out how
like slimy some of these guys are because when I was when I saw you
were gonna do the debate space, I'm like, okay, I actually because
I'm a catechy human in the Orthodox Church. I have been for like half
a year now, largely thanks to your material. But I was like,
okay, so I I really want to see like some serious roum Catholics debate
Jay, because like I want to see if because Papp was in there and
he's uh making dumb epistemology arguments and getting mad and calling me names once he
couldn't answer it. Yeah, and like this, uh this like Pop Prospector
guy who I tagged, he like sets up his own space and he says,
oh, like I'm challenging J. Now, yeah, he sets the
exact same time, yeah as the space I already set up. And then
he can say, well, you didn't come to my space. I mean
this is when he's already like posting about it and saying you're a coward and
stuff, and I'm like, you know what, like, because like I
haven't been like a cradle Orthodox, I'm like reasonably open to changing my worldview
if the right arguments are presented. But then I just see this like slimy,
nasty behavior by these guys, and I'm like, you know what,
I feel like way more confident now. They're like, I'm making the right
decisions. So I just want to say, like two guys who think that
this is this is the way to do it, it's not, because it
just it turns people away. And so yeah, I just I just kind
of wanted to say that, Yeah, I appreciate that, Joe. Yeah,
many years to you. I hope you enjoy the process of catechumen it.
Now this guy is saying he's trying to get on here, trad cat,
I don't see your Elfrico, Oh here you go, Okay, go
ahead, finally, what's up man? So uh So, I think that
among a lot of American whether it's Catholic, Orthodox, and especially the Protestants,
there tends to be an over intellectual intellectualization of things. And I often
think this is because you know, I think that Christianity, you know,
I know, you just went off on like the Galatians one, and you
know, these supposed operations can't do this. Well, let's let's break before
I get into that. I wanted to say that, like, you know,
I think that in many parts of the world, these like these miraculous
things like oh, my grandma goes to drink coffee with a virgin marriage.
I'm not saying, you know, we have to base our faith entirety on
that, you know, but we do have to believe in the miraculous.
I agree with that, yeah, of course, because you know, without
the Resurrection, were nothing. But I definitely do think that certain miraculous things
of the Church, of the Catholic Church definitely do prove us, you know,
ultimately. So if it proves you, then you're an evidentialist. I
think though the Bible tells us by their fruits you shall know. Well,
but Jesus, you remember the story of the guy who's in uh torments and
he says, you know, let me have a drip of water to cool
my tongue. And then he says, Lord, let me come back and
let me tell my brothers less come to this place of torment. What does
Jesus say to him, I don't remember, you don't remember the story.
Yeah, so the tradcats don't read the Bibles. That I mean, I'm
not trying to be mean, but like, this is a well known story,
right. He says that, yea, though one rides from the dead,
they will not believe. They have Moses in the prophets. What does
that mean? I mean, I read the Bible. But at the same
time, what does that mean? The man that's in torments says, Lord,
let me go back, and if I rise from the dead, I
can warn my brothers lest they come to this place of torment. Jesus says,
they have Moses in the prophets, and if they don't believe that,
they won't believe even if one rides from the dead. What does that mean?
Well, that goes to show that just because certain miracles can take place,
that doesn't mean that this is that this is going to convince everybody.
But I don't but see, But that's the point is that miracles, themsels
else can't be the deciding factor because there's everybody out there in the world claiming
miracles. Hindus claim miracles does do miracles. No demon demons can influence things,
you know, the Bible at So how do we know when it's a
mirror a demon versus a tribute by the fruits by their fruits. Okay,
I grant you that, But that means then that miracles themselves aren't approved.
They're in They're an attestation to the true faith. They follow the true faith,
so they're going to be there, but they can't be the thing that
proves it. Sure, but you would you would expect the true faith to
have these things. I agree, that's exactly what I'm saying, correct,
But they can't be themselves the proof is the point. I think that's a
stronger. I think that you know certain things. I say, you're at
debate with the with natural theology, and I think natural theologies are inherently true.
And I think this point is it's inherently true. Okay, So now
we're back to the epistemology issue. How do you know or proved that something
is self evident? Because that's what this classical foundation is sorguming to rest on.
I'm not going to pretend you like I'm super into philosophy. Well,
you said, we know that natural theology is true, So how do you
know it's true? I bet I was getting something. We know it's true
because I mean, and then unless you're going to go into like, how
do how do we even know reality is real or whatever? Because you know,
it's just like we recognize them by their fruits, you know, so
so so self evident principles are free because we recognize them about the words.
Yeah, how what's the fruits? How do you determine the fruits of a
self evident maxim So let me give you an example of the parapateetic axiom?
What are the fruits of that? You know? Oh, this isn't even
the main points that I wanted to get into. But okay, yeah,
but you said natural theologies obviously, how listen, I'm going to recognize my
limits and a certain thing. Back to what I said. What I'm back
to about all of what you're saying is built on this faulty foundation though what
I was going, right, but you don't want to talk about it,
said blow past exactly. But anyways, Yeah, anyways, I'm not going
to care what you asked or I don't concern myself with your arguments other bra
this is why they don't come on guys. Nothing to do with me being
mean? Was I mean to that guy? Yes? Okay? And how
how does that mean to him? Well? I mean, I think I
don't think that you're mean. I don't want to talk about you, but
I thought you were a little bit mean. How was that? What did
I What did I do that was mean to him at all? I mean
you you implied that he was it him or the other guy. You implied
that they don't read the Bible because they didn't know something. Well, I
mean, the issue of Galatians one is central to whether or not we should
accept miracles and apparitions on face value. Well, they do think the inferences
that you drew from Galatians one and the other text from the Gospels, it
doesn't really follow. Like, for example, you said, oh, so
Galatians one is not about apparitions, Well, he says, although I are
an angel from heaven or we are an angel from heaven. Okay, so
that doesn't apply to as a principle on recognizing and discerning. I mean,
I suppose you could definitely apply that to apparitions, but I think that there's
other miracles that attested the truth of Catholicism that do not that you could not
apply that to Could you understand that? That's why I went to a pistemology
with the previous guy, because every time you try to make this argument,
you guys can't explain to me why this or that miracle or this or that
vision or apparition quote proves Catholicism because you rest rests on a faulty epistemology that
you guys just want to ignore and brush aside. Okay, I would,
I would present it this way. I'm sure you're aware of and you probably
don't think much of it, but and I'm not sure I do either,
But I'm sure you're aware of a C. S. Lewis and is like
tripecta liar, lunatic thing. Yeah, it's a terrible argument. Yeah,
Okay, Well, I think that you could apply a similar logic when we're
talking about the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church makes very bold claims of
herself, just as Jesus did, and Jesus vindicated the fact that if Jesus
was not what he claimed to be. Okay, so if I make really
bold claims, does that make me also a contender for the true religion just
having no no that alone. No, you said that Jesus is like the
Catholic Church and making bold claims. So what's that supposed to prove? Well,
because of the fact that if his claims were false, then the Pharisees
would have been ok. Have you never heard of why this is a bad
argument? The lord liar larn is it? Can I present how I apply
it to the church before you destroy me? I mean, you can present
it, but are you aware of why it might be a bad argument?
Go ahead, go ahead. Well, the way that the Gospels, for
example, present Jesus, or the way that the New Testament presents him,
in no way gives the possibility that he is a lunatic or a liar.
In fact, Peter says, no of assurance this day that God raised him
from the debt and has made him lord. So to know with assurance and
to then read these texts to talk about pulling down the strongholds and destroying every
other worldview. That doesn't to me leave this evidentialist notion that there's this possibility
that, well, maybe he is a liar and a lunatic. It actually
excludes that possibility. Well, I agree, that's part of the argument is
the fact, Well, he's we know that he must be Lord because we
see from the scriptures that he is not a liar. He was a man
of great upstanding moral character, and you know he And the premise of this
argument is that you either have to accept. In other words, it puts
God in the dock and allows the unbeliever to be the judge of God.
That's the problem of the argument. Okay, Okay, well I think that,
So I'll just go ahead and present why I think it applies to Catholicism
with regard to particular miracles. Okay, but wait a minute, Wait a
minute. If it's not a good argument, then presenting it is not going
to do anything. I don't care if you present it, but like,
what is it supposed to do if it's a bad argument, Well, I
don't think it is. I have to finish presenting it so that people can
decide it. Well, I just explained to you why it is a bad
argument, So I think that you represented it correctly. Can I prove my
version of it? I gets might spin on it at least, but it's
based on an evidentialist approach. To argumentation. It's still an evidentialist approach.
And my critique that has been the critique from the very beginning tonight, is
that all of these evidentialist arguments fail because they're based on classical foundationalism. Do
you get that point. I understand that point, like I understand that that's
your perspective. I don't think that the scriptures have the same position as you.
Because Jesus used his miracles to vindicate his ministry. Yeah, but that
doesn't conflict with my position because using the miracles to vindicate does not themselves prove
that the position's true false. It's it's just an attestation or an evidence.
I'm not against evidences. Do you agree that if he, for example,
if Jesus claimed aimed to be God and he was not, he would be
a blasphemer. Yeah, that's the argument in John when he's arguing with the
past with the Pharisees exactly. But it was he demonstrated with his works and
he said, you you are for which of my works do you kill me?
So he was saying he did good works and that vindicated the fact that
he was from God, and particularly that he cast out delay. But you're
missing the point though that like, let's say I prove the resurrection to an
unbeliever, does that prove Christianity? Well not not the event in it in
itself right, But so evidentialism. This is why evidentialism doesn't work. That's
the point and the problem. The problem with evidentialism is the root epistemic issue.
Well is I mean, I would say you have to make you have
to make an argument in order to make the resurrection meaningful to the person you're
talking to. Yeah, well yeah, I agree with that. So but
there's places for when you make evidential arguments. That doesn't make evidentialism true.
That's two different things. Evidences are now necessary, not evidentialism. It's too
it's ones and ones an epistemic position. The other is not equated to an
epistemic position. I believe in evidence is I'm not. I'm not an evidentialist.
I believe in evidence is in the proper place. That's fair. I
don't think I would identify myself as an evidentialist per se either, unless you
think, I guess you think natural theology is evidentialism. Absolutely, they're they're
they're they're very closely related. So okay, I think it's a little bit.
But but I guess you can just tell me. I suppose you operori
reject it. But because of this difference in like fundamental approach, But do
do you at least see where I'm going with the fact that, because if
the church is not the true church, and the you know, the papacy
is not pallible, why would God accompany this church with these miracles that can
only be from God, such as exorcisms that Jesus that he explains in the
Book of Mark. Somebody casts out demons without being a part of Jesus company.
So there's nothing about that. There's nothing about exorcisms, thoselves that necessarily
proves that you're part of the true church, right, but the truth?
But why would God accompany miracles to a church that makes such that miracle?
In particular? I don't I don't grant that you all have all of these
miracles. First of all, I don't grant Fatima as a miracle or any
of these ridiculous apparitions even as miracles well I'm talking about I'm just I'm resticking
it to the exorcisms because I think those are not they can't be demonic.
But how would that prove that you have the true Church? Do you?
Uh? Does if if Mary appears as Zune Egypt to the Coptics, does
that prove monopseetism? No? I think apparitions are a weaker Okay, So
where do you get the criteria? The status of exorcisms are above the weaker
level of apparitions, like do you where do you derive those? Well,
because an apparition I'm not speaking of these eperitions in particular, but an apparition
could theoretically be a demon, whereas a exorcism could not be according to scripture.
Okay, but none of this would still really work to prove natural theology.
And by the way, exorcisms don't have anything to do with natural theology.
Well, I think that, well, it does have to do obviously.
The council trend does teach that, you know, miracles can prove the
existence of God and the One True Face, so so really at root it's
an issue of natural theology right right, But I'm saying that the fact that
a miracle such as exorcism can prove that's part of the Catholic position. Yes,
but again it's all going to be interpreted on the basis of the paradigm,
So you're going to interpret what are supposedly Catholic miracles according to the Catholic
paradigm. To back up the Catholic paradigm. When I see those things,
I don't see any proof of Catholicism because of a different paradigm. So there's
no way that these evidences are which are. Let what I believe is that
we're all reading these events through rose colored glasses. So it just like if
you try to show, for example, an atheist, if we try to
convince him of the resurrection of Christ through say historical testimonies or some like that,
like he's going to interpret those things through his atheist lens, and he's
going to say something like, well, okay, you know, maybe maybe
something weird happened and a guy did one time, you know, you know,
come back from the dead, and it was some sort of weird phenomenon.
We just haven't explained it yet. But one day science will figure out
why and how that happens, and it'll be explained one day. So do
you see that there's nothing about that that necessitates that it's self evident the Christianity
is true? And you even said earlier that just proving the resurrection wouldn't necessarily
prove Christianity. So the root issue here is the natural theology. And I
want to know why natural theology is true because the natural theology feels Roman Catholicism
fails, right. I mean, I'm not as philosophically knowledgeable as you,
so I don't know if I want to go into a deep like. I'm
committed to that position being a Catholic, but I came to my Catholic position
a different way than you did because I was okay, fair enough. So
I came to this from a like and I didn't study the philosophy too deeply,
but presuppositionalism made sense to me. I was a Calvinist, but as
I was reading the Gospels, I saw that Jesus used his miracles to prove
his ministry, and the Pharisees did interpret his miracles differently through their worldview.
But that doesn't mean the miracles weren't sufficient proof that in fact, they were
and that's why they were. So why does he say, Why does he
say to the guy in torments, even though you rise from the dead,
they will not believe. Because it's the issue, isn't the sufficiency of the
proof. It's the fact that the person is rejecting the testimony of Moses because
of their sins. Now, the point of that is that even if one
rise from the dead, they won't believe it's a miracle. Yeah, you
can't compel someone, but by your argument that that's one of the strongest proofs
would be a bodily resurrection. And Jesus says that no, if they don't
believe that the scriptures, are not going to believe one that if one rise
from the dead, So the miracles don't prove the faith. My physician is
that it is proof, and that's what they're culpable for rejecting it. Regardless
of them, that's why they're cold. Jesus says that even if one writes
from the dead, they won't believe because they already don't believe in the inspiration
of the scriptures. Yeah, he's but that's econdom. Just like whenever the
Pharisees describe Jesus as miracles to Satan, he then condemned them for that because
of the fact that the miracles did prove that. He was. Yeah,
but but there's nothing about the arbitrarily chosen ones that you've picked out like,
oh, well, an exorcism proves it, right, Because by the way,
when you have if you look at Galatians one, when Paul makes that
limitation on what you're supposed to judge these events by, he's not pulling that
out of nowhere. It's actually based on Deuteronomy thirteen and Deuteronomy eighteen, which
already gave you the criteria by which you judge all signs and wonders. So
are you are you aware with what of what Deuteronomy thirteen and eighteen say about
that? Yeah, it talks about like prophets who say something will come to
pass, and if it doesn't, then they're a false prophet. But if
it does and they lead you to worship other gods, then you're just stoning
them as well order to execute them as well. And so if so,
let me give you another And I'm glad you said this, because there's a
very famous uh, a Coptic exorcist. Does that prove the Coptic Church?
The Coptic Excorsi is on YouTube? Well, I would say that it serves
as evidence that there God works in that church. Wait a minute, so
it's not a proof of the church because now God works in churches outside of
the Catholic Church. You said that that exorcisms prove the Catholic Church, not
by themselves. It's oh so, now it's not that exactly. It's well,
it's a combination of things. Because wait a minute, so now you're
moving the goalpost. I thought extra, but you are because you said that
exorcisms are better than apparitions, and those are the ones that we should look
to. But when I give an example of Coptic exorcisms, all that doesn't
count. Well, it doesn't have to prove it by it. It's I'm
saying, for example, but the church misses that. They don't have the
qualifier of being a Catholic church. They're not universal. Well wait a minute,
you don't even know what universal means, because according to the church its
fathers, universal means fullness of truth. It doesn't mean the papacy. It
doesn't mean numbers. You understand that it doesn't mean numbers. In the fourth
century, that quote, Catholic Church was reduced to a small handful of bishops.
So do you think it equates to numbers. No, But I do
think that Jesus commanded the great commission to be fulfilled and that wait everything,
So every account example you say doesn't count. So now numbers don't matter.
So is it numbers or not that makes Catholicity, Well, it's I don't
think it's numbers. I think it's the every tribe, tongue nation in people.
Well, I can agree to that, but I can agree that you
can still be reduced to a small group, like in the Arian crisis in
the fourth century. So so did did the Church lose Catholicity in the fourth
century? It could be a small group, but not an ethnical lead.
But not where does the ethnic come into this? Well, nobody brought Maybe
I'm not too knowledgeable of Coptics, but it seems to me that they're very
limited to a particular region. And well they you know, they have they
have multiple ethnicities who profess Monophysitism or whatever. Who are you know of that
quote communion? Yeah, I guess, I guess. I'm just saying,
like, wouldn't it be confusing if God were to put these miracles in this
is? So why is it not confusing though? For me to believe that
the miracles are proving a group that has just now told me that Muslims and
Christians worship the same God. How is that not confusing? So you're saying
the miracle, I look at the miracles, not the documents in the dogmas.
No, I think that the if the I suppose, yeah, it
becomes an extended issue in terms of it. If Muslims and Christians worships.
Do you believe that? Do I believe? Yes? I do in a
sense yes. Oh and what senses that? Do you think Muslims think that?
No, Muslims of sam Committee Sure? Okay, So in what sense
then does a person who denies multiple attributes of God and denies the deity of
Christ and the Triad worship the same God as a Christian? Well? I
mean, I understand that you want to know you you tell me you know
who cares what I think? Well, I think that you would. You
would reject the fact that I'm saying that. You know, we both believe
in one God, the God of Abraham. We believe in divine some places.
Wait a minute, so wait a minute, So, so do you
know what the quantifier shift alic is? I it sounds as if you're saying
that, Go ahead and tell me, do you know what it is?
I don't know it by right. So that is when a person says,
well, I believe in one God. You believe in one God. The
Satanists believes in one God. Therefore I believe in the same God. Right,
Yeah, no, I agree, But because if that's a fallacy,
then how do you and the muscle worship the same god? Because that was
where you were going? Are you there? If you're there, we can't
hear you. You can try to come back and come back in. I
don't know, Jared, hey, Jack m I don't want to beat it
a horse, but these kind of the arguments are awful king coming out of
track Catholicism, and it's wild the amount of like I call it all stritch
heading, when you just dig your head in the sand and overlook everything and
just say, oh, well you know the keys, it's that's the true
church. Yeah, well that's what happens. Is like anytime we really get
into the issues, they throw their hands up and it's Wilma apparitions. I
just follow Fadama. Yeah, is he not aware that also Jews and Muslims
also practice there for my vesticisms, like they have their own deliverance ministry,
if you will. I come from a Jewish background as well, And I
have Muslim friends and they'll tell me, yet it's not the same God.
We also have our own miracles. We also have our own That's an interesting
Yeah, I haven't thought about like like Hasidic Jews do exorcism for it.
Yeah, they do. They Actually there's a movie on it, a documentary.
I don't pire for other name, but it's a legit thing. And
they claim to have those kinds of miracles. But like you said, miracles
do not make a faith or a certain church legitimate. But that's again what
they point to. And it's funny because all that scholossicism kind of goes out
the window when it comes down to all of these, you know, minute
points in these miracles. I spoke to over five different quote trad priests who
all told me different things. They said, some say Vatican two is is
uh, what's it called? Not binding? It's not dogmatic? Some say
it is. I spoke to a Uni eight priest, a Romanian Catholic priest,
and he told me that there is no one true church. Can you
believe that? He said, it's all We're all just here worshiping the same
God. Is all. If there is no one true church. Let's all
gus just getting along. That's what I was told. So that really kind
of vindicated Orthodoxy for me. But I just had a couple questions on the
Old Testament. Okay, coming from the Jewish background that I kind of grew
up in, I'm sort of confused on how Rabbinic Judaism came into being,
Like, how could all of these religious Jews, these Pharisees, these people
to study the text all kind of get it wrong and then how to kind
of well, we wouldn't say they all did so. Like for example,
if you go back to Jeremiah eight, when he starts talking about the lying
pen of the scribe, we can tell that already in Jeremiah's day, probably
related to you know, the time in Babylon, there's a division, there's
a fissure that's occurring already between certain scribes and probably what will become Pharisees Ezra
sets up the synagogue system. That's where that comes from, right, he
talked about in Jeremiah A the lying pen of the scribe already beginning to pervert
the meaning of the text, not the text itself, like Muslims say,
but the meaning of the text and then you'll notice that Gesus in Matthew I
think twenty three when he there's a lot of parallels with with Jeremiah and his
life and the things that he says that parallels the life of Christ. If
you compare the two, they're really close. And one of those things is
the diatribes against the scribes of their day. So Jeremiah is critiquing the scribes
and the religious stories of his day. Jesus does exact same thing that Jeremiah
does. So I think that that's an indicator, a textual indicator, that
that's where we're beginning to see the rise of that tradition, and by Jesus'
time, presumably it's already kind of becoming codified. But keep in mind that
thousands and thousands of Jews in the first and second century are the foundation of
the Church. They are, so it's not like all the Jews went into
Rabbinic Judaism like gigantic portions are the real literal foundation stones of the Church.
Right, So how didnic and like Talmudic Judaism, So this comes right,
This is something that kind of manifests precisely when Judaism and Christianity officially part ways
in the first and second century. So if you read like the Boyaran Book
or the I think it's the book the Boyaran Book that deals with this,
this departure in the in the first and second century. There's got a whole
chapter on this. What is the name of that book? It's at my
other my other place. I don't have it with me. Let me pull
it up. It's the one I cite in the Daniel Hikikichi debate. But
that's where you start to see the codification and the real solidifying of the different
Talmuds, the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud. This is where there's this
idea we don't even know if it's exactly the case, the Council of Jamnia,
which supposedly kind of is a rabbinic synod to decide about proto masoretic text.
But a lot of this is just kind of like, we don't know
exactly if that's the case, but it looks like that's when the two groups
are part ways. Gotcha, because my dad's Jewish and he's very reluctant to
He's like, well, how did all of these you know, modern day
Jews and these these rabbis and these verses kind of get it wrong. And
that's what I'm trying to kind of find, well, they did it right.
Also, the Messianic juke uh uh what's his name? Buddy of mine
from years ago? What's his name? Ken? I mean he has a
book, Uh, Judy Jesus has the Messiah Judaism versus Judaism debate. And
the book that I mentioned earlier is called Borderlines, The Partition of Judaism and
Christianity by Dan Daniel Boyarn. It's a good book on this. Yeah,
great questions, man, I appreciate that. Mm hm. The edge of
Marina, did you want to try again? We got to hear you before,
Marina there, Marina brown Vitch right there, that's just a joke.
You have to turn your mic on. We can't hear you. Mario.
It's to me, Mario, I'm the boss. It's me Mario. Hi.
I wanted to regard the remark on Trent Horn's post on Twitter that you
said about the logical fallacy. I think that from his point of view,
since is you're talking about the quantifier chef, Yeah, okay, that's one.
Yeah, his point of view? Is it really committing the logical fallacy
since is holding the position that you of the pure act and natural theology and
all of that. So it could actually make sense that if Musuzims or Zoroastrians
or whoever riches a god that is actually one. No, but see God
is not the Aristotilian God. First of all, it's the triad right.
But secondly, I don't even think it works even if the even if a
Muslim and a and a Trent, even if Abu Trent and you know,
Abu whoever Muhammad over here are coming to agree. Uh. If you read
the Garibie paper on theistic fallacies, he makes multiple arguments where he points out
that like to have the Christian deity, for example, requires a set of
beliefs about that God, and if you remove any of that set, then
it's not that it's not that reference anymore. This is why, for example,
Basil, like when Basil is arguing to get Eunomius, like, even
though you Unomius says, well, I believe in Father, Son and Holy
Spirit just like you. Well, does that mean that they mean the same
God. No, Basil doesn't concede or think that you know me as worships
the same God as he does. So the the systems are such that it's
a holistic thing. You can't remove attributes or essential predicates and still have the
same reference. And this is called in the paper, if you read the
Garibie paper, I think it's name is Daniel Garabe G. E. R.
E. B Y theistic fallacies. It's called the non substitutivity of uh
oh, what is that blank in? Is that trend's not sharing this view?
So on his logic, it's all comedic and fallacy because it's starting from
a point of view where yeah, I know that you disagree on that.
You're saying that, Wait, wait, why is he not keviny Folsey Because
on his on his view, he doesn't agree what you said about, you
know, the atributes that you have a holistic system. I think the fact
that yeah, but hold on. But but the fact that he doesn't agree
to that doesn't mean that he escapes the critique. That's just him being inconsistent.
I'm saying that he escapes the critique because it doesn't he doesn't agree with
the fact that you need the whole holistic view. Yeah, but that's that's
why I'm saying it's inconsistent. There's no such thing as like, oh,
I'm defending thirty percent of the trinity that doesn't exist. No, but I
think from his point of view, the Trinity is a revelation thing. No.
No, but that's but that's why his natural theology fails, and that's
why he argues that the Old Testament doesn't each your trinity. That's the point.
Yeah, right, so his whole project fails. Okay, yeah,
community, all right, Yeah, well you can keep defending that if you
want to go for it, mister cough Keno. By the way, what
I was trying to say was the non substancutivity of identicals and episcific context.
That is the point in the Garabee paper where there's a certain ambiguity to terms
that don't tell us what the term is referring to unless we know the whole
context. That's the point here. And if you read the Garby paper,
it's in there. Go ahead, Hi there, Jay, Thanks for when
me come speak. I hope every my MIC's working. Well sure, uh
so. I am a Catholic and I listened to you speak quite a bit
about national theology. You listen to your de be with believe was Trent Horne.
It's been a long time, but I have some questions regarding this.
So it seems to me, I'm sure you understand this to a great extent.
When it comes to natural theology, the idea is essentially that there is
some things you can know about God apart from divine revelation. Well, it
actually goes further than that. If you look at the definition of John Paul
the Second. His definition was it's not just you could know some things,
it's let me see if I can find the definition here. So well,
even even just even if it's like a basic framework, would you disagree with
that? Or well, let me let me, let me see if I
can find this definition. It's not long, it's let's see where is it.
It's just basically any reasoning about God apart from divine revelation. And it
assumes that you can have this sort of self evident approach to reasoning to God
that doesn't require any revelation to ground it or to its basically just falls back
on self evident maxims. Okay, so right, Well, the way that
or you critique often the application of this in the when speaking about well,
you know, the Catholic Church dogmatized that be worship seeing God as the Muslims.
And so I guess and this isn't me trying to get like like a
gotcha or anything like that, honestly serious. So when it comes to Aristotle,
for example, just an example, So do you believe that Aristotle believe
in God? Do you believe he worshiped our God? Or is that just
right? So the Christian position should be the way that Basil and Hexameron two
says that Aristotle was a fool because he worshiped the Dad, namely an eternal
actualizer, moving prema material from early tity. That's making the premium material opposite
God also eternal, and that would be a diad. So how is that
at all? The same God is what we worship. So the point there
is that there's no like scale down lowest common denominator God. You got to
have all of the attributes to be referring to the right God. And if
I take away some of those key attributes. For example, many Muslims don't
believe that God is omnipresent or present in the world or in time and space.
So you understand that a Muslim immediately removes one of the crucial attributes of
God. So how so if that's the case, then the referent is not
the same. Okay, So the way, the way, the way that
I would critique a little bit of what you're saying, and forgive me if
I mischaracterizing you in some way, But it seems like any sort of basically
one would have to have a full understanding of God and all of his attributes
in every way. No, you have to have the ones that are delineated
in divine revelation or for example, in the churches teaching on the Trinity and
incarnation. So it's not like I have to know every exhaustive aspect of God,
but I have to know the ones that the church is laid down.
And okay, so as a Catholic, right I tend the Latin Mass,
and even in the Novisordo, which I'll sometimes attend. The Filioquay is you
know, we profess the philio Quay, and so that would be something that'd
be something in your eyes that you see as as a sort of as one
of these big attributes that were that were missing because we professor the philio Quay.
You deny at tilio Oquay, you believe in monarchia the Father, it
would be one. I think there's other things that Roman Catholics hold in relation
to the Trinity that also cancel it out beyond just the triad For example,
you know, created grace is another one of these elements that cuts off the
direct knowledge of God. And the other thing too, is a point that
I think Lawsky makes, which is that the whole project of natural theology,
for example, assumes that you can have access to attributes of a simple essence
that don't come to you into the mode of the triad And the problem is
that if you go to the Caffadocians into the triadology of the Constantinople one,
which is the ecumenically dougmatized teaching of the Trinity disposedly for the West too,
they actually argue as if the attributes and the energies come in the mode of
triad So in other words, there is no attribute that comes to us that's
not triadic. So if you're going to talk about God's omniscience or his omnipotence,
or his eternality or whatever, those are energies that come in the mode
of the persons that have them. There's no such thing as deriving a bunch
of attributes from an absolutely simple essence. So the project from the outset is
thus anti trinitarian. And if you read the Garabee paper, he actually argues,
why would I accept a Tomistic view and not a perennialist view, because
a perennialist makes the exact same arguments as a tomas in terms of their lowest
common the nominator attributes approach, and he uses, for example, the embarrassing
figure of in our church who is still a Tomist Swinburn. Swinburn has this
list of what he thinks are the lowest common de nominator attributes to pick out
quote classical theism, And the point is that there's nothing about this list that
would prevent you from becoming a perennialist. Again, I'm not too familiar with
with perennialism, but I just well, I'm not trying to be mean here,
so you're not familiar with that, I'm not at all, not at
all. Okay, so you should be read this paper and I'm not trying
to cut you off. I'll let you say whatever you want to say.
But the reason this is really important is because I think this argument about perennialism
shows that the lowest common nominator approach is very dangerous because it can easily lead
a person to the what's the name of the perennialist guy in here, so
that the paper cites Hick I think it's his name anyway, but if you
read the article, you'll you'll see the the perennialist guy that's mentioned. And
he actually makes this point to Swinburn the Thomas and he's said, you know,
basically saying, there's nothing about this that prevents me from taking uh,
the natural theology l C. D. Low's common de nominator attributes and concluding
perennialism. That's like shoe on Gannon all those goobers, there's not. So
in other words, the whole project is anti Christian, you see, And
that's what underlies the nostratat Luminagentium sixteen approach to why we can pray in the
mosque with Muslims. Yeah, so, I mean I could could see some
things to that. I'm not sure how how helpful that would be, but
I it seems to me that as the Catholic Church sees itself as being grounded
in revelation, in saying these things. I mean, I mean, but
the fact that it claims that doesn't that that just means that it has can
conflicting claims. That doesn't mean that it's correct because they claims something else somewhere
else. Let me let me give you an example of that real quick.
For example, Trent was saying or something somebody in the threat. It wasn't
Trent. Somebody said something like, oh, well, here's a quote from
the Catechism which says that there's traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament.
No, I'm aware that Roman Catholics believe that there's these traces quote unquote of
the Trinity, which, by the way, I think there's actually weak language.
It's not traces, it's like explicit. But even if I granted that
it was traces, like, all that tells me is that that's inconsistent with
what is presented in Vatican Two's and Lmagendeum sixteen and atte about the common ground
with Muslims. Well, I would say, when it comes to Trent's debates,
and I've heard him say it a few times and I found it rather
disappointing. Is the idea that Abraham was unaware of the Trinity in some way,
things like that those sorts of comments disappointing. Well, but you understand
that if I recall in Sumacontrad and Telas, Aquinas actually makes that that line
of argumentation that the Old Testament reveals God's sort of unitarian existence, and then
with Christ and the Apostles we get this new revelation of the Trinity. I
think too, I'd say that I think the trend is being able to lose
with his language. I would say that I don't think that the patriarchs necessarily
had a full understanding of the interior life of the Trinity, but I do
believe like it's very clear in the text when in Genesis, when the three
angels are appearing to Abraham, that's obviously at the very least the type and
sign, but the language is used literally that that is God. So right
now, and you understand too, there's also like dozens and dozens of other
theophanies in the Old Testament too. Okay, yep, I watched your debates
with with Shabi Ali and the other Masamthella. Okay, well, I'm gonna
do it. I'm going to start a whole new series now. I'm gonna
go with their every Theophany and Trinity of Christ passage in the Old so that
that's going to be the series. It's a great idea. In the nineteen
fifty five liturgy for the Easter Vigil which I attend yearly, they also have
there's some texts that the whole idea is that you're you're tracing Christ's presence or
the promise of Christ throughout the Old Testament. And there's simply more readings there.
So there's some interesting ones that I had before. There was, for
prinstance, one in Baruk which I hadn't hadn't been brought to my attention yet.
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of these. In fact, when I
did a talk on this three or four years ago and it was about three
hour talk. And then since that time, I've reread the Genesis, Judges,
actually I reread most of the New Testament since then, maybe a few
times over, and there was all these passages in Isaiah I totally missed.
There was passages, and I missed the passage in Judges, I think Judges
six where it says Yahweh turned his face to get in. I totally miss
that. So I mean I missed these things. That's everywhere. So you
and you were speaking with with pinesap earlier, the ecclesiastical discussion came up where
you were speaking about so there's it was referencing some particular scholar with regards to
this list of the dogma. So I was the whole thing that was screaming
to me at the at that time is that, I mean, theoretically speaking
as a way of knowing, the pope or a council could declare those things.
Do you do you disagree with that assumption or because wait a minute,
but this is what I find to be really and I'm not trimming mean to
you, but really absurd is the idea that, you know, the Roman
Church is the oracle from which we look to find out what the magisterial dogmatic
teachings are. We've never been given a list of this. Oh but one
day we'll get that list. So that to me is just propast has given
the fact that the purpose of the existence of the papacy was to provide that,
and now we're actually saying that it hasn't provided that it's going to maybe
provide that one day in the future. You don't think that's kind of just
ridiculous. And by the way, by the way, you're not ever going
to get that right. We know that, like France is not going to
give you the infallible list of the infallible dogmas. So the okay, So
the way that I see it, though, it seems it seems as though
the magisterian is constantly doing not exactly that, but is giving us the knowledge
which we need regarding any particular topic that is a controversy or well. But
you see that even though for example, they might put out a new document
or an insyclical, you know, addressing this to that issue like that itself
isn't doing me much because I, then, like every other Roman Catholic does,
has to go through that document and try to figure out, well away,
is this sentence actually part of the universal ordinary magistran that was reflected in
all the other previous documents. Is this a new private opinion of the pope
or is this now part of the ordinary teaching which I do have to accept
but might be fallible? You see that it's not. You're not in any
better position if you just say even if you say that, well, there's
a new document that addresses the controversies like, it's still the issue is still
there, like and that's why every Roman Catholic comes up with a different list
of what the things I have to believe are. Yeah, I guess I
understand your critique in that sense. I just and this is sort of my
subjective feeling on the subject. So this is but it seems to me like
one can, if one is being charitable, one can get at least a
reasonable understanding of the faith. It seems to me like a lot of well,
okay, well I will grant so I agree that Rome has laid out
those basic criteria right like it has said it's got it. So there's Extraordinary
Magisterrum, which is absolutely binding, you know, that's you know, directly
pronounced and for the on faith and morals by the Therapeter. There's the Universal
Ordinary Teaching, which is also under the terrorism and reflects anything that the Church
has always taught at all times. And then there's the ordinary teaching, which
might err but must, as I understand, be submitted to with docility even
if you disagree. But again the issue is not does Rome give you a
criteria? The point is that you've got three vague criteria and The reason I'm
saying vague is not that the criteria themselves are not precise, but there are
three vague criteria for a giant, massive documents, which I'm bound by all
the Papal teachings. That means that if I buy the four or five hundred
dollars set of the Papal Teachings, which is an actual set, you know,
that might be a thousand dollars in I don't know what it is.
But if I buy that set, that's all the papal and cyclicals for the
last several hundred years. I'm bound by all of those documents. I'm bound
by everything that's in Denzinger. I'm bound by all the things that are in
the Catechism that line up with that as well. And I'm also bound by
the ecumenical councils and their teachings insofar as they're approved by the Pope. So
that's a giant stack of documents. So I have three criteria that I'm then
supposed to understand and dig through these documents to find and put in the right
bin. To me, it's just a sort of outlandish to think that you're
in any better position than a Protestant in fact, the Protestant has actually less
documents to comb through. He only has the Bible. But you have the
Bible in all of these other tens of thousands of papal documents that you're bound
by that you have to hope that you're putting into the right bins. Now,
how is that any better than a Protestant position when you could very easily
be putting them in the wrong bins. And isn't this exactly exemplified by the