Speaker 1: A Brahmic faith is very important in Vatican two as
this idea that all that call upon the God in
the Bible. Remember when Trent said, the Islamic term God
is just conditioned by divine revelations. So he tried to
stay stray away from natural theology arguments. Contrary to Tomashevsky,
he was trying to argue that just linguistically, when Mohammad
picks up the term God, it's from the Old Testament
or from what he's hearing, and that must be then
the same unitarian reference of the Jews. That's why I
was arguing that the Old Testament is not a Unitarian God,
which he did not want to address in which he
contradicted himself on because in the live stream right before that,
a couple of nights earlier, he had said that David
didn't know who Jesus was. The Trinity is not back
at that time, they don't know Trinity yet. And did
you catch in his quote going around that he was
actually making an Astorian statement. He said, do you think
that this Yeshuah revealed in the Old Testament, this ams
with the Lord, you think that's Jesus? In Palestine, a
Jew in the first century of Palestine. Yeah, unless you
want to be a Nestorian. It's the same subject you
goufhus So he didn't even know he's making Nestorian statements,
but who knows. He was in a drunken stupor, so
we don't even know if he was coherent or if
he even recall. Who knows if he even recalls what
he said today. And the other thing I've got the
more I thought about it, I don't think this manner
of acting out is not just what you see with
somebody drunk. This is the pattern and manner of acting
out of people on Ssriyes, and particularly if a person
on SSRI eyes begins to drink, that's when you see
this type of a manic manifestation. I don't know, just
my speculation, but I've seen that many times over the years. Now,
not only are they not brothers in the Brahmic faith,
Jews are specifically with Muslims to be designated as different
dressed people. Muslims should not inter marry with Christian women.
Does this sound at all like the attitude that we're
going to see by the time a Vatican two And
I'm only putting this in here to express how different
the attitude was of the papacy at this time. Jews
may not hold public offices in Christian places. They are
hostile to Christianity, and they must never be allowed to
exercise power over Christ because we forbid this due to
Jews being blasphemers. Does that sound like they have the
same reference the love and adoration of the same deity.
Later than four, the Catholic state must suppress Judaism. Wait
about this is the same God, Why do we got
to suppress it and suppress Jewish power? This is the
Roman Catholic, medieval papal position. We order that Jews are
compelled by the secular power to not exact interest and
usury under the pain of excommunication for the princes who
don't enforce this. So the pope is saying that Catholic
princes that don't enforce these separations and divisions can be excommunicated.
And then he goes on to talk about the Holy
Land and the call for another liberation of the Holy
Land from these pagans. If you don't if you do
not fight, if you are committed to fighting, fighting the Muslims,
not fighting, Arab peoples not fighting, or random peoples fighting
the evil race and belief of the Saracens. The Saracens
are just to stand in for the Muslims, and we're
going to see that explicitly here in a moment the
pagan demon worshipers. If you commit to the crusade and
you backslide and don't commit to that, then you are
excommunicated from Rome, right there? Do you see that? Keep
in mind the attitude of faith in morals of the
papacy is what's unchanging a little, But it's time and circumstance.
And now I know time and circumstance. But in Catholic theology,
morals based in natural law and faith based in supernatural
revelation is supposedly not able to change. So the faith
that the Catholic Church professes in the Middle Ages can
in no way be equated to, or likened to, or
shared with the other entity, these that are blasphemously worshiping
demons and hating Christ in the Trinity and killing Christians
in the Holy Land. Thus we must go to war
with them. Imagine thinking that the people that you're going
to war with are really just secretly worshiping the same
God as you, and hey, bro, Why even go to war?
Why even have martyrs? When we went to Italy, we
went into the giant cathedral San Maria Maggioria, I think
it is. And when you walk in there, it's a
giant cathedral with giant chapels in the cathedral, and each
chapel is giant, and each chapel is devoted I forget
how many there were, play eight tens like that. Each
chapel is devoted to a certain nation, a historic Catholic nation.
And when you walk into the Poland chapel, which has
giant paintings and murals all over the chapel wall inside
the cathedral, all you see is crusaders fighting off Muslims.
I'm going from a memory. Is it Jan Sebiski? I
don't even remember who's in that? Isn't that the great Polish?
Speaker 2: And is.
Speaker 1: Lee Sobieski, even as she related to them, probably anyway,
regardless of what Polish king it was, these dudes are
all famous for fighting Muslims and they're honored in these
giant murals. The victory of Heaven over the demonic infidel
saracin Mohammedan's imagine betraying your ancestors and the people that
you're so proud of in your Catholic heritage, who fought
against these demons, and you betray them for these criminals
in the Vatican, these scumbags and the scumbags on the
Internet that follow them and acclects comebacks. Imagine betraying all
of that and your heritage and your ancestors what they
fought for, for your internet clout and for your papist nonsense.
Isn't it ironic? Given how much Roman Catholics and Papists
are committed to their heritage and their tradition that they
supposedly love so much, And now they're defending the last
seventy years of popes that want to pray with Muslims
and mosque and say it's the same God. They they've
built the Abu Dhabi Faith Center primised on this nonsense.
Your hypocrites, you're lying to yourself. Fifth Crusa twelve seventeen.
Pope Innocent the Third writes a bull called Quia Mayor,
and in this bowl he says, Christian peoples in fact
have held all saracens up to the time of Blessed Gregory.
But then a son of tradition arose the false prophet
Mohammed seduced many from the worldly elements and pleasures of
the flesh. Although his treachery has prevailed up to this day,
we nevertheless put our trust in the Lord who's already
given us a sign to come, that the end of
the beast is approaching, whose number in revelation is sixty
sixty six. In addition the former great and great injuries
which the treacherous sirations have inflicted on the Redeemer. And
then he goes on to say basically that this is
an Antichrist. So Mohammed is a great Antichrist, according to
Pope Innocent the Third. And this bull which you can
find online, is another call to crusade against the Islamic
faith because it is anti Christ. Imagine saying that Antichrist
has the same faith as Christ. Imagine saying that that
is the sophistry and the nonsense and the smoke and
mirrors of the philosophy that these guys threw up to
try to cloak the obvious. Muslims and Christians do not
worship the same God, because worship and adore is not
the same thing as a mental conceptual abstraction of knowing about,
just like Jake, the Muslim metaphysician knows a lot about.
He probably knows more about Orthodox and Roman Catholic Trinitarian
theology than most Roman Catholics and perhaps many Orthodox And
he only say that because Jake spent many years getting
dirt and information and reconnaissance in our discord, pretending that
he was an actual inquirer and interested in Orthodoxy. I
don't mean a literal inquirer, but like inquiring in a
loose sense, like, oh, I'm interested, tell me about Orthodoxy.
Oh yeah, sure, here's this. This is all he was
doing was trying to get all of our arguments to
understand our position, so Jake could could Let's say, Jake
goes on to get multiple PhDs in medieval metaphysics, Byzantine theology,
and Patristic studies, and Jake writes multiple PhD theses and
texts that explicate the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity perfectly.
Does he in a sense know the Trinity, of course,
but it's in the same sense as the demons know
the One God. And that's precisely why I wanted to
show Number one. The Vatican contradicts itself on how they
understood the Mohammedans and their worship. And number two, you
don't get anywhere with that, and it is part of
the ecumenist movement and is it self an antichrist idea
to equate abstract knowledge of the thing with love and adoration.
And that's why when it got to the Thomashevsky clip,
it specifically did get to the point of where he said,
Lois Lane loves and adores Clark Kent, she doesn't know
about Superman. And of course that analogy fails, as we'll
see here in a moment, because cal El is actually
deceiving people who is who Superman really is, and he's
deceiving people through multiple identities. So that would actually work
to prove our point that the Roman Catholic idea is
in fact that God is actually present in all the religions.
He's just behind the cloak of all the different religions,
which is perennialism, which is exactly what we're arguing Aboutigan
two is so fifteenth Documentical Council. This is thirteen eleven
to thirteen twenty one. I meant that that should be
twelve thirteen to twelve. This is Pope Clement the fifth.
Now keep in mind if Vatican two the papacy goes
in praise towards Mecca in the mosque afterwards, at least
in the Blue Mosque. This is Uh Francis did it,
Benedict did it. I'm not sure if Jump Paul the
second did it. He might as well have done it
because he did the Asssi gatherings, which is basically the
same point here. The fifteen Ecamical Council under Pope Clement
the Fifth states that the blasphemous public worship. Notice here
this is the worship of the Muslims. No amount. How
do you worship the same God as us? But the
worship is blasphemy is all is Catholic worship, then blasphemy.
If you can truly worship God while also blaspheming helped
me to understand that Roman Catholics. That's why at one
point early on they were arguing to some degree that
Muslims worship demons, but it's also all at the same time. Okay,
that's not accept like, that doesn't get you anywhere, That's
not what is worth anyone's time. And if the whole
point of this was to prove that there's a dead
faith that demons and Muslims have. What does that get you?
That doesn't explain the text of Vatican two saying that
they worship and adore together with us Catholics, the One God.
But that's what Vatican two says. That's why they didn't
want to go to Vatican two because it's a problem text.
And even if we went to Vatican two and they've
had some sort of Tim Gordon style explanation of hermanutic
of continuity, well, the actions of the popes are not
at all a hermautic of continuity, because I'm showing you
the actions of the popes for centuries from the year
ten thousand or one thousand and nine here to thirteen eleven,
thirteen twelve, where it's if you kill them, you'll have
your sins remitted. Is the worship of Islam good, virtuous
or is it blasphemous? Now, whether you think this is
right or not, listen to the wording of Pope Clement
the fifth here it is an insult to the name
and disgrace to the Christian faith that in parts of
the world under Christian princes where Saracens Muslims live sometimes
apart and sometimes intermingled the saras in priests that are
some commonly called the Zabazalah in their temples or mosques
in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Muhammed.
Muhammed is an infidel. That means not of the faith.
If you're not of the faith, then you're not worshiping
the God of that faith. Keep in mind the faith,
because I'm going to show you for Roman Catholic dogmatic
statements what they said was necessary for a Mohammedan to
have the faith. Did you know that the Holy Office
was asked these questions back in the seventeen hundreds. Missionaries
were going out they met Muslims that wanted to be baptized.
The question arose, if they're on their deathbed, or if
they don't really understand us, can we just baptize them
as Muslims? Guess what the Holy Office said? No, but
wait a minute. If a Muslim worships the same God
and adores the same God as us, the reference is
the same. Why would we not baptize them if the
faith is the same. The faith is not the same.
And you'll see that in a moment. It's kind of
absurd that we even have to demonstrate this like that.
I even have to come on here and show you
the slides in the medieval teaching, and you can go
look all these up. By the way, they're all publicly
sourced on the internet. I mean, who do people not
know this? Do you not know about the Crusades and
what the pope said? And like I be thought everybody did.
I mean I went to college and had a class
on the Crusades, right, and I had a liberal professor obviously,
right shocker. And I mean despite being a liberal and
apologist for Islam, like I still learned all this. And
it would take you ten minutes tops to go through
and check these decrees of these ecumenical councils. For the
Roman Catholics, he goes on to say, they adore the infidel,
the faithless Mohammed in their mosques. They loudly stole and
invoke his name in the hearing of Christian and Saracens.
They make declarations in his honor. There is a place
moreover where there was once buried a Saracen whom other
Saracens venerated as a saint. By the way, the Shiah
do that so that's not made up. That seems very likely.
A great number of Saracens flock there, quite often from
far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith. Wait
a minute, but it wouldn't it be the same. No,
our faith is brought into disrepute by them honoring their
so called martyrs. In Christian lands, this practice could not
be tolerated without displeasing God. Muslim worship displeases God. It
is not accepted. It is subject to divine judgment. He says.
In the next section, All Christian princes must forbid Muslim worship.
They are to remove the offense of Islam altogether from
their territories because it is sacrilegious. The name of Mohammad
must be expressly forbidden. Why doesn't Mohammad teach and lead
us to the One God? According to Vatican two, just
the wording of Attican two versus this is night and day?
Can you not see that? How do you not see this?
Like what goes on in the mind of the Roman
Catholic when they read and see this to make this
insanity work. I don't understand. I can't grasp it. And
again this is partly why I left Rohi, because this
stuff is just complete nonsense. Just be honest with yourself.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess I'll be inside of a concious tradcat.
Good luck with that.
Speaker 1: Let's see how that works out. Moving on Council of
the End thirteen eleven of thirteen thirteen under Pope Clement
the Fifth, Muslims are the faith less enemies of Christianity,
anti Christ, worshipers of demons, faith less infidels. Their worship
is blasphem us and not accepted by God. They blasphere Christ.
They're unclean, but it's still the same God. They still
love and adore the same God as us. Here's a challenge,
where prior to Vatican two do we find any language
like At two about Muslims. I'm aware of one statement
that was a letter that the pope one pope in
the Middle Ages, right around the thirteen hundred. Somewhere in
there I forget exactly which pope it was. There is
a letter that sometimes Romancallics will cite where a pope
says something to the effect of, you also acknowledge one God.
But how do we get from that? Even if I
grant you that one? And who knows what these Romancalolics
could be a forgery. Even if we grant that one,
does that cancel out all of the other lists of
vitriolic statements that we've had so far, faithless enemies, blasphemers,
anti Christ, demon worshippers. And by the way, even if
you could find the Vatican to statement in the Middle Ages,
all that would show is that they're schizophrenic. They contradict
themselves because they can't both be right. Pope Callixtus the
Third fourteen fifty five, the sin of man has been
taken and ruined. Wait, we need to reconquer Constantinople, which,
in punishment for the sin of man, has been taken
and ruined by Mohammed, the son of the Devil, the
enemy of Christ. Mohammed, son of the Devil, enemy of Christ. Furthermore,
Christians are languishing in slavery. Do you think the Muslims
believe that it's the same God, Well, it doesn't matter,
doesn't matter because it's the Catholic position bason natural theology,
which is what matters. Yeah, but it's gonna matter in
the world if the Muslims have the same faith as you.
When the Muslims come into your church, and blow themselves
up like they just did in Syria. Does that sound
like the same faith as you, sons of the devils,
the sons of the Devil and enemy of Christ. But
they preach the same God as Christ. If you don't
preach Christ, you don't preach the same God as Christ.
And we're gonna see that from Christ himself. I vow
to deliver the Christians and slavery, and I exalt the
true faith. So Christianity is the true faith. Here Islam
the false faith of Antichrist. And we will extirpate the
diabolical sect of the reprobate faithless Moham, reprobate faithless Muhammad,
demon worshiper, anti Christ. And these deceivers want you to
believe it's the same God. And why is this such
a big deal? Because if you follow the papacy and
these people into this delusion, you will go down the
route of spiritual death and blindness and worshiping like they do.
You will unite yourself to the spirit of Francis and
Leo and John Paul the Second. And that is a
spirit that goes into these demonic abodes and worships that God.
Their God is not our God. It is not the Triad.
They have surrendered it by doing these actions. That's why
it matters. That's why the people who argue against us
act like because they're diluted. They cannot understand or see
the truth, because they care more about the opinions of men,
their paycheck, their Internet clout, milking the low IQ Roman
Catholic audience out there, which is probably I'm guessing a
lot more monetaryly, monetarily beneficial than the Orthodox world. I
don't know. I've never been trying to make money as
a Catholic creator, so I don't know, but I would
imagine there's a lot more, you know, dupes and people
to griff from. And if you want to be like
scam shamouh, why not just invent Apostolic Christianity, which is
all the groups and then you can milk them all. Now,
let's look at all of what we saw in these
These are just samples about that. You understand, there are
many more that perhaps are not even translated into English
or that we don't have direct access to. I'm talking
about medieval from the year nine hundred to you know,
fifteen hundred six, seven hundred years of papal statements about Crusades,
the religion of Islam, Etceterat how bad it is, as
well as Judaism too, by the way, that demonstrate this point. Now,
let's look at the attitude of the infamous Vatican two documents.
The Church regards with esteem the Muslims. This esteem. Are
you serious that the people that you just call for
the last several centuries faithless reprobate anti christ demons. So,
in other words, the Roman Catholic Church esteems Antichrist. They
adore the one God, don't There is no adoration of
the one God. That isn't the Father, that isn't triad
There isn't one. Whatever that's adoring is some idol or
some fiction. And even Jake would tell you, I don't
adore the trinitarian God or God the Father. So imagine,
and I put the clip up of the guy, the
crazy guy, when I said, do you think Jake adores
the One True God, explicitly saying he rejects the Trinity
in Christ? Yes, he does. In other words, Trent and
Tamashevsky don't adore the One True God, even because they
believe that their deity is this common generic deity, and
he didn't even know that it's Jesus in the Old Testament.
He thought Jesus of Nazareth a first century Palestine. What
first century Palestine Jew isn't the Angel of the Lord
Yeshua in the Old Testament. Good job being historian with
your dual subject christology, you idiot. Nostra Atte goes on
to say that the God of the Muslims is one,
He lives and subsists in himself, is merciful, all powerful,
and the creator of heaven and earth. Now right away,
we can refute this because the one God of Christianity,
that is our God, is the Father, that's the nice
seene Creed, and the creator who will judge the world
is Jesus. So that's also false. Muslims do not adore
the judge and the creator of heaven and earth, because
that is Christ countless times in the scriptures, So no,
they do not. Islam is predicated on for its very
existence opposition to the deed of Christ, the Trinity, God
being a father. Allah is not a father. God is
not spirit in Islam. Did you know that too? God
is not a spirit and God has limited updated knowledge.
He's not even omniscient in Islam. And by the way,
when Islam says he's creator, they mean he literally actually
creates evil, which has existence, So they're actually gnostic dualist
Manicheans when they say creator. So you see how stupid
this is to use the terminology as if it's synonymous
amongst the world views in the systems. It's just as
dumb as the Mormon thing, which we brought up a
million time. And apparently according to the original stream a
couple of nights ago, doctor Trent, I haven't listened to
the whole stream, but many were saying, so I could
be wrong about this if it's not true, but many
were saying that he said, yeah, Mormons worship the same God.
Apparently he doesn't know that Mormons believe that God is
a man who became God, and God, the Father in Mormonism,
still has his created body. He's a creature God who
became God. So even if you go the tonistic natural
theology route of supposedly core essential attributes that pick out
the generic deity, right, and those would be things like
he's one, he's absolutely simple, he's noncomposite, he's the first
cause he's outside of time and space, he's omniscient. He's omnipotent, right,
These are the things that the Tomas and the Roman
how the natural theology guys will say, these are the
things that we reason about this one first principle apart
from revelation. This is natural theology. Those are the things
we know apart from revelation through philosophy and metaphysics. Supposedly.
Oh really, So when Swinburne, one of their great proponents,
lists the eight or nine whatever it is core attributes
that he doesn't even know that Islam rejects several of
those supposed core attributes, this is how stupid this is.
They don't even know what Islam teaches. Now, maybe that
Doherty guy does, I don't know, because he claimed that
he had mastered Islam studying under doctor Norman Geisler or something.
I don't know, but he didn't provide any assistance or
any backing up. When Tomashevsky made some super basic, stupid
level mistakes when he thought that medieval popes were at
the birth in the early phase of Renaissance, accuse me
of Islam. So let's get back to the other statement,
because you understand you have to read both statements Islam
takes pain to submit to God's decrees, his inscrutable decrees,
just like Abraham. The problem is that they do not
do this like Abraham, because Abraham believed in Christ. Paul says,
the engalationis for that the Gospel has preached beforehand to Abraham.
And then he goes on here to say, as we
pointed out, that the only seed that counts, that is
Abraham's seed, are those in Christ. So there is no
such thing as a Abrahamic faith. That doesn't exist, or
if you want to use the term, the only Abrahmic
faith is faith in Jesus. That's the whole point of Galatians.
For ye are the children of God through faith in Christ.
You're the seed. If you were baptized into Christ, you
are one in Christ, and you are abraham Seed. You're
the true Israel. Muslims and Jews are not. It's very simple.
It's the algy you want to biblical, the alogie one
on one. The promised Covenant blessing of Abraham comes to
Gentiles through Jesus right there. So there is no other
faith that matters or counts. That's an Abrahamic faith. It
doesn't exist. It's a an invention of ecumenists and natural
theologians over the centuries, This idea of a common faith
of the monotheistic religions that doesn't even exist because I
don't know what monotheism is without an arbitrary list of
the supposed core attributes. And when Swinburne lists them, the
first thing that the Garybe paper does is say, there's
no reason why this should take me in the direction
of Tomism and Catholicism. Why should I not conclude from
this list of arbitrary eight attributes that the God is
really the Perennialist God, the sophia Parenthist God. There's nothing
that makes me say that that structure has to be
within classical Roman Catholic theology. It could just simply be Perennialism.
It could be renegan On, it could be frietof Shuon.
And beyond that, there's Sikhism, there's versions of the Astrianism.
There's theistic Satanism, arguably Marcianism, arguably Hinotheism. There's the Druze.
There's the Shakti religion, which is a version of Hinduism
that's monotheistic. There's the cow disect in Buddhism, there's the
Bahai faith. So there's nine other monotheistic faiths.
Speaker 3: Well, but those aren't the monotheistic faith that have a
verge cause.
Speaker 1: Oh what if they do have a first cause? What
if I'm a theistic Satanist and Set is my first cause?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 3: Well, but he's not obniscient.
Speaker 1: Uh you mean like Allah who updates his knowledge? Uh
oh uh oh. This is why Jake is actually pretty
useful for us, because Jake follows Ibn Tamiya, and Jake
knows that Ibn t Mea who is like the Pala
Moss of Islam, believes that God has limited knowledge that
he updates himself with because the Koran says that. So
they don't even know that traditional soon he Islam doesn't
believe God's omniscient. They don't. It's like the Vatican wrote
this and didn't really know the nuances of Islam. It's
kind of funny.
Speaker 3: Actually, well, even to be is not real Islam.
Speaker 1: Okay, Now we get into this other stupid argument as
to what's the real Islam or the real Judaism, And
this actually works in our favor as well, because if
you're gonna tell me what the core central tenets of
Judaism are wouldn't that be determined by the system of
Judaism and not what you, as a Roman Catholic natural theologian,
wants to pick out as a commonality. In other words,
to argue that there is a common core already assume
the thing that could easily be in question. How do
we know that that's the common core? What if being
triad is essential to God? If being triad is essential
to God, I'm not saying triad is essence. I'm saying
that for God to be God, it is essential that
he is Father, son, and Spirit. And that is true obviously,
Then you can't make triad non essential to God. Is
so dumb. And I didn't even go into this in
that debate because it's so stupid even have to debate this.
Christ being divine is essential to who our God is
in the Nicene Creed, and if you remove one of
those things, it's no longer that God. I believe in
the Trinity, and I believe in all the things you
guys believe, but I don't believe God's omniscient. Guess what,
It's not the same God anymore. Now you have a
heterodox God that is like a creature in that he
has created attributes, so it's no longer the trinity, you idiot. One, two, three, four, five,
six seven. By the way, there's seven places in the
Qur'an that speaks of Allah's limited knowledge that has to
be updated. It's like it's like and I think I'm
going for memory, maybe Jake or one of these Solafi people,
like they described it like God gets like a daily
update as to the new facts. I'm not joking. Like
Islam is so stupid, by the way, why would you
want to say you worship the same God as when
Islam is literally like the dumbest cult on the planet. Man,
it is literally a cult for sub Iq. I mean
you have to be sub Iq to actually study and
look at this really is so stupid as in so
many ways and in so many aspects. And for the
Vatican to sit here and like say we have the
same God, it's like you're going to just make yourself
look even stupider by saying that. And by the way,
the same goes for the ecumenists in the Orthodox world.
I don't know why they think this is such a gotcha.
It's not. Of course, there's a humanist in the Orthodox world.
I've been calling them out for over ten years. I've
done countless podcasts against ecumenism and orthodoxy. You think I
don't know that MPs and patriarch its say heterodox things,
But how does that equate to the magisterium contradicting you goobers.
If we thought these patriarchs were inerrant, infallible and the
heads of the church, that might actually get you somewhere.
But it's just a two quoquay and it fails because
we don't have the same system as you. And congratulations
on showing that you don't understand basic orthodox Ecclesiallo. That's
all you demonstrate from that oustin five month? Member, what's up?
Can Sam Hid train you for Trent? I look, I
think at this point I will always be doing I
mean I always, but I'll keep doing the open calls.
I just don't know that there's any point in the
public Roman Catholic debates anymore. I don't even know if
I want to even debate Tim anymore. And it's not
because of any personal thing. It's just like I'm not
doing it on Cameron's thing. I'm done with Cameron. I'm
never interacting with that dude. Again, these people are just
such snakes man, and it's like it's funny because all
they do is winding, bitch. They're cry bullies about me,
and they're the most snaky, deceptive, lying people. I'm talking
about Cameron and all that crew. Okay, Tim's never lied.
I have another Catholic friend, Dave, that's been a friend
of mine for a long time. He's never lied, he's
always he's always been straight up. The rest of these people,
they can go suck an egg for all gear. I
don't want to interact with him. I'm done. I mean,
I like, I don't know what else there is? What like,
what else can we do and say? If you don't
understand at this point that papism is a giant criminal enterprise,
then I don't have anything else to talk to you about. Like,
I don't even want you around here. You can go elsewhere.
I don't need your friendship, I don't need your interactions.
I don't care about your channels. I don't care about
the clicks. Now I'm gonna have open forums, and there's
always the opportunity if Catholics want to call in, But
there are no more public Roman Catholics, even worth debating anymore.
If Tim finds a giant channel, I'll do it, because
I did already tell him I would do that debate.
I'm not gonna do it on Camera's channel. We all
will never talk to that dude again. I'm not ever
talking to Sam Shuman again. These people are insane. Papism
makes you go crazy. I mean, imagine defending this stuff.
I mean, this is the bullshit you'd have to defend.
No wonder you go crazy. And I would say when
I was trad Cat, I was probably going crazy. I
mean I drank a lot as a trade cat because
deep down this shit was insane. I don't know how
do I make this work? I might as well get drunk.
I don't know. So I don't know. Man, give me
a cold beer. And yeah, a lot of these people
are gay, so do get the f away, Like I
don't want nothing to do with leather Daddy, all break
or none of y'all. Man, y'all are weird gay creeps.
Go away from me, Go to your pride festivals or
whatever it is you do. Go away from me. Uh,
Steve mcleoven five dollars. Romancalvich's launched the fourth crusade, the
Muslims conquered Constantinople, Romancalvick's claim that they worship with the Muslims. Yeah,
make it make sense. Make it make sense, roll six
five dollars. Their Superman Lois Lane argument was the best
that they had. Excuse me. That was the same argument
that Trent Horn had about water properties in H two.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you. I don't even remember what
Trent Horn's argument was. That debate was so long ago.
But I mean, here's what I thought about the more
I thought about the this morning when I woke up,
I was thinking about the the uh whatever, soy bullshit like.
But by the way, imagine not wanting to go to
the Bible, and when you sider making these dumb analogies
from freaking soup soy superman. Shit, man, these people are
just trash. These they're trash people. Man, They're trash people.
That's why I'm done with them, Like, I don't If
you're Ron mcaloln just don't even don't even bother. Just
move on now. If you're interested in open to Orthodoxy
or not being Roman Catholic, you're welcome other Roman Catholics.
Bae bah go suckond egg, it isn't Isn't it interesting that?
Now this isn't it? Here we go in the dominology
used Superman and Clark Kent are actually kal El tricking people.
So this would mean that the true God deceives people
by hiding in every religion. But that's exactly the perennialism
that you end up with in the Roman Gothic position
defending Vatican two. God becomes the greatest of deceivers, hiding
behind the cloak of the religions. Oh but wait a minute,
what is Allah in Islam the greatest of deceivers multiple
places in the Qur'an. Oh. Interesting, So a death cult
whose god is limited in knowledge and is the best
of deceivers kind of sounds like the same guy that
Jesus said came to steal, kill, and destroy. So the
God of Islam matches up to Jesus a description of
the god little g who fell in the beginning, who
came to steal, killing, destroy, who Satan? Well, guess what
I actually agree with the papists. I agree with the popes.
What how about I agree with the popes of the
Middle Ages, the popes of the Middle Ages stated the
correct position. That's Antichrist, that's blasphemous, infidel demon worshiping. That's
the correct papal position, not this demonic bullshit. Finally, those
who have not yet received the Gospel are related to
the Gospel in various ways or ways to the people
of God. Excuse me. In the first place, we must
recall the people to whom the Testament and the promises
were given and for whom Christ was born. According to
the flesh Jews, on account of their fathers, they remain
dear to God. God does not repent of the guests
and the callings that he issues. But the plan of
salvation also includes those that acknowledge the creator. Well, wait
a minute, Jesus is the creator and Mohammad is excuse me,
Allah is the creator of evil. So if our God
is not the creator of evil, then he's not the
creator of Islam. And if our God and creator is Jesus,
then it's also not the God and creator of Islam.
And by the way, the phraseology, but I believe the
phraseology is actually intended to convey. Now it's ambiguous here,
but I think they actually are intending to convey that
you can be saved in Islam? Why do I think that?
First of all, why would you even you don't even
need to say the plan of salvation includes everyone? That's
who doesn't know that. Is there somebody doubting that the
plan of salvation means Arabs an Arab peoples, or Jews
or Muslims. I mean, that's retarded, okay, So why even
include the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the creator?
Unless you mean to say that you can be saved
if you know that there's a creator, like a Muslim.
The first amongst these are the Muslims who, professing to
hold the faith of Abraham, along with us Catholics, adore
the One God, adoration, worship, and adore with us Catholics.
That's the problem. Passages this merciful God, who on the
last last day will judge mankind. Wait a minute, though,
for us Christians who judges mankind on the last day
Allah no Jesus, that's an explicit reference that it is
not our God. It is not the same judge, It
is not the same reference. And it is true that
in the sixteen passage Lemgentium sixteen it says professing to
hold the faith of Abraham. But if you look at
the Noser tadi Ire passage, it actually says just as Abraham.
So they are saying that it's the Abramic faith. Hence
why they created an the Brahmic Faith Center. And did
you notice in the debate that in the Roman Catholic mind,
what the popes do, their actions have nothing to do
with the doctrine of the theology. Really, are you sure
is that actually Catholic theology, that actions, whether pope or layman,
have nothing to do with the faith. Let's see what
Aquinas says about that. But first note at the bottom,
religions are bound up with the advanced cultures that have
struggled to answer questions. In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine
mystery and express it through inexhaustible abundance of myths and
through searching philosophical inquiry. Okay, that's all kind of generic
and bland, not necessarily problematic. Hindus seek freedom from the
anguish of a human condition through ascetical practices or profound meditation,
or a flight to capital g God with love and trust.
In other words, polytheistic Hindus now also adore and love
and have faith, trust, in the one God that Christians worship, No,
they don't. Is Hindu theology is even more removed than
the idiocy of Islam. And granted Islam is nonsense, but
Hindu is even further away, that's true. But to be
further away or closer to us is irrelevant when what's
necessary is the entirety, the whole system. Hence why again,
which I brought up in the debate, which they shouted over.
They didn't want to hear this part. When Saint Basil
writes against Eunomius, who is just another Unitarian, like Islam
and like the Jews and like the Samaritan woman, Basil says,
you've lost the faith, You've lost God. You do not
worship the God that we worship, who is trinity. Eunomia says,
I reject your trinity. Basil says, you no longer have God.
Saint John Christism Jews do not have God, they do
not have the Father, they do not have the worship
of God the Father. Exactly what Jesus says in John
five and John eight. What is the patristic terminology here? Oh,
it's exactly what we say, it'sn't it. Yeah? And I'm
going to talk about them still lying about Palomas because
they haven't read Palomas. They don't know that the entire
first triad is against natural theology. And Palomas says, if
Plato got one conceptual idea about God right, it really
doesn't matter at all because it's all demonic and worthless.
The very point that we're trying to make getting one
thing or one attribute doesn't equate to worshiping and loving
the thing. All it equates to is getting one attribute right.
That's it, And we're gonna see what Jesus says about
getting one attribute or a handful of attributes right, It
doesn't get you anywhere. It's not salvific. Now, they said,
I don't have a problem saying it's not selvific. Oh, really,
you don't have a problem saying that it's Then why
does Vatican too use the terminology of salvific presence in Islam?
By admitting that, you're admitting that Vatican too is a
surrendering of the position. Remember Tomashevsky's opening slides. He believes
that Islam is not self effict and it does not
get you to God, but that the reference is the same,
and the whole point of this debate, again, is that
Vatican Two's documents don't just say, Okay, Muslims have a
conception of God. They think they love God, they think
they worship God. It says together with US Catholics, they
do it, you liars, along with us. Muslims adore along
with US Catholics. Muslims adore the One God. Let's get
a little refresher. What did the medieval popes say they
worship demons? These lunatics sat there saying that you can
worship a demon and still worship the One True God.
What I mean the selphistry of these like, that's what
this is amounting to. That's the level of sophistry of
these people. Now let's get to some of the biblical refutations,
because this is where this really falls apart. Now, remember,
according to them, you could worship a demon and if
you think it's the One True God, it's the same reference.
But you're still you're loving and adoring the One True
God even though you're loving and adoring an actual fact
a demon. This is how silly this is. How does
the Bible conceive of this? Does it conceive of it
in this bizarre way, or does it just flat out say,
all the gods of the nations are demons. But God Yahweh,
who is Jesus, is the creator the things that he
even he then sacrifice. They sacrifice to demons. What a
Vatican two say about Hinduism, They also love and adore
through their practices in faith and trust the One God Hindus.
What does Paul sound like he thinks that human? I mean,
is there a sect of Hindus that do well? I mean,
there's a Thuggies, but there's there some ancient practice of
like burning a woman on an altar? Is that an
ancient Hindu practice? Oh? Is that am I worshiping? Am
I human sacrificing my unfaithful wife on the altar? Well,
it's too, the One True God. Even though I'm human sacrificing,
even though it's doing I'm doing it to a demon,
I still love a door the One True God. I mean,
this is just insanity. It's just changing the meanings of
the words adore and worship.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Idolatry is not identical to worshiping the One True God.
And the false conceptions of God, whether in heresy or
whether in apostasy, are idols. It's idolatry. So these people
are equate idolatry with the worship of the True God.
And this is exactly what the Vatican does. And this
is the spiritual sin and the delusion that they're in.
They are idolators. They worship and serve creatures in the
place of the One True God. And Romans one is
not their dumb natural theology. Romans one is making the
point that I just said, the Heathens got rid of
the worship of the One True God to worship and
serve creatures, Paul says, and their hearts, their hearts were darkened.
It doesn't say they failed to reason properly. It says
their hearts were darkened and they lost the worship and
love of the One True God because they worship and
serve creatures, which is idolatry. Universal idolatry is not equivalent
to worshiping and loving the One True God. But keep
this in mind. According to these goofballs, basically everything would
still get you to loving and adoring the One True God.
There's nothing that would disqualify you. Even explicitly rejecting the
Trinity incarnation, according to these idiots, still doesn't disqualify you.
From worshiping adoring the One True God. That's the idiocy
of this position at the highest level. And I had
my friend a third eye Noose made a comment on this.
I wanted to read because I thought his comment was
pretty perceptive as to where this actually leads if you
think about it, I mean, on their grounds, essentially, nothing
is a disqualifier. Let me find that quote here.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: Their position negates the reality of Psalm ninety five, that
that the gods of the nations are demons in their paradigm.
When taken to its logical extension through the Vatican two documents,
nobody actually worships demons. They have all just a limited
grasp of the same reference of the One True God,
even in all their demonic polytheism. Exactly, this is exactly
what Vatican two says. Even in Hinduism, men seek enlightenment
or how does it freedom through meditation or flight to
God in love and trust faith? The hind do faith
capital g God, Let me move me so you can
see it all right? There, you see it, See that
this is my friend's point in reality in the system,
nobody actually worships demons. All they have is a limited
grasp of some same reference even in polytheism. Their position
would really just argue that these people have an uh
impoverished view of the same reference. Yeah, that's the whole
point of perennialism in natural theology. Ultimately, that's where you
get that's what this gets you to. Then we were
at full blown perennialism and the one role religion of Antichrist.
Absolutely so, all the smoke and mirrors is literally just
spiritual rot and poison from a bunch of skittles Roman Catholics.
I mean, dude, screw these butt buddies. Man, they're a
bunch of butt buddies. Why are you getting your theology
from all these butt buddies. You shouldn't have a butt buddy.
Stop being a sowy man. Deuteromi thirty one. They offered
sacrifices to demons, which are not God. In other words,
Moses says, their sacrifices aren't to God, their worship isn't
to God, to gods they had not known, to new gods.
A new God is a different God. If you read
Dideromi thirteen. In Deuteroni eighteen, when God warns the Israelites
about being seduced away to another god. Does he say
it's me still, but it's another god, that a cloak
that I wear. No, he says, other gods don't be
seduced by other gods. Other gods. Allah is another god,
you idiots, When Saint only a Ramacau that could take
the passage with Saint Fotini the woman at the well
and turn it into the opposite of what it says.
She's the archetypal schismatic. Now, remember schismatics are great for
this point, because a schismatic has the same theology generally speaking,
but they've severed themselves through severance of love, so they've
abandoned brotherly love. They've broken fellowship, even if they have
the same theology. But I don't even know if I
would say that she's actually the same theology. She thinks
she has the same theology because she says, we worship
the one God at the you know, the where where
our father Jacob told us to worship. That's where Samaritanism
comes from. But it's actually, uh, it's a schism that
comes about in terms of worship during the time of
the kings, right with the sons like Nadab and a
excum Bemelec. And and like this the sons. When Solomon
dies and then the kingdom splits, you have one of
the evil sons decides that he will set up a
rival place to worship. And that ties into Samaritanism. And
the reason he was doing that, by the way, which
is funny, it's a statist move. He wanted to control
the cultists. And if his rival brother had controlled Jerusalem
and the Temple, why not create an alternate altar for
the Israelites to worship Bat that he had control over.
So that was the geopolitical motivation for doing that. I
wrote an article on that, maybe ten years ago. But
point band is that she says we worship God truly
according to the teaching of our father Jacob. And yes,
Jesus uses the word worship here, but he says you worship,
but you don't know him. And so that'd be like
imagine switching out the previous references to offering the Heathen sacrifice.
It'd be like imagine a Paul said, the Heathens worship
through their sacrifices. Oh, so they do worship. Did you
read the passage? You worship what you don't know? We
Jews worship what we do know for salvation is of
the Jews, the true salviafic worship, which is the whole
point of this. This is the whole critique of Vatican two.
Vatican two is compromising and surrendering the salviafic worship by
granting that that worship exists amongst Hindus and Muslims and Jews.
But Jesus says, you worship an idol. That's what he's saying.
Jesus statement in John four twenty two is no different
than Paul's statement in one Corinthians ten twenty. Now, the
woman at the well is not worshiping the same thing
as whatever the Heathens are sacrificing to. Right, maybe the
heathen is sacrificing to Apollo. I evoke Apolo, and here
is this goat and the woman at the well well, haha,
I worship the God of Jacob. Now this further refutes
Trent because Trent argued that because Muhammad is picking up
the same word God as a reference from the Old
Testament texts, the argument would be identical to the woman
at the well is Saint Fotini. Because the Samaritans believe
that they're worshiping the God of Jacob. The Samaritan tradition
comes from Jacob. Their schismatics. They think, I worship the
God of Jacob, and Jesus says, well, you do, and
you know him and you love him and adore him.
But it's just partial because we all worship the same God. No,
Jesus flat out says, you don't know God. You don't
have salvation, and you don't know God. Therefore, muslim don't
know God, they don't have salvation, they do not worship
and adore God because to worship and a door in
the true sense, means a real connection, to have that
love connection, the love, the love connection. Now, what about
the Pharisees. They also turn out to be a great
example of this. I know you, you do not have
the love of God in you. Wait a minute, remember
when Talmashevsky said loving and adoring is pretty much the
same thing. Lois Lane loves an ADOR's Clark Kent. Muslims
love and adore the One True God. Unitarian Pharisees, basically,
we could say they have the same position as the Muslims.
It's a Unitarian position fundamentally. Essentially. Oh, let's see, remember
when he said that they can love God, they adore him.
You do not have the love of God in you.
And he tried to say, well, they don't have the
love of God in them, but they love God. The
passage means you don't actually love God. This is so stupid.
We have to get into this like sophistry with these people.
This is I mean, Tomaism is a religion of sophistry.
Speaker 4: The whole.
Speaker 1: This is a giant construct of made up sophistry. Every
angle of it is another level of it. And again
I put this in here because most of the time,
at least in the case of Trent, I don't know
about Tomashevsky, but remember Trent Horn. These these people, these
biblically ignorant people, don't even know that Jesus is the
God of the Old Testament, that he's the Angel of
the Lord who made himself known to Abraham as Yeshua
in Zechariah three. It's Yeshuah who's present, the Angel of
the Lord, the high Priest, Yeshuwah that's telling you who
this is. So let's hammer this home with the Unitarian
Pharisaic Judaism position, which is basically the same Unitarian position
we'll say of Islam. Was that good enough to attain
to God the Father to get you to worshiping a door?
That God the Father. The pharisee said, we aren't illegitimate children.
We have one God, the Father. Now remember this is
closer on the spectrum than Muslims. Muslims do not believe
the one God is the Father. Jews believe the one
God is the Father. But it's not good enough. Even
believing closer to our position than the Muslims who reject
that God is Allah his Father, does it get you anywhere.
It's not good enough. We are not illegitimate children. We
have one God, the Father. Jesus says, if he were,
you would love me because I came from him. I
do not come on my own. He sent me. Why
can't you understand what I'm saying. It's because you can't
accept my words. You are from your father, the devil.
You chose to do his desires. He was a murderer
from the beginning. Jesus said, if I glorify myself, then
my glory is nothing. Is my father, who glorifies me.
Of whom you say, you say he's your God, though
you don't know him. And he's not your God. Muslims
don't know him. He's not your God. The Muslim position
is even further away by rejecting Father. Do you idiots
not see this? And then he says, I am Jesus
in his pastage, says, the one that you think you're
worshiping in the Old Testament is me. Before Abraham was
I am. In other words, I am in the bush.
I'm the one talking out of the bush me. Then
they wanted to stone him because they understood what he meant.
They understood he's saying. The reference is him, not a
generic unity, not a generic father, not a generic nonfather
of Islam. Islam is a religion premised on Nestorian and
Aryan heresies, and that is confirmed in the Oxford Handbook
to Islam. This was contested for many years. John Damascus
made this up when he said that Arian and Historian
monks are the source of Mohammed's theology. Oh well, it
turns out we have the Islamic Theology Handbook of Oxford,
and on page seventy six and seventy seven, the scholarship says, no,
actually it is from Arianism. Actually, John Damascus has vindicated
that's exactly where it's from. So what that means is
the Roman Catholics are gonna have to say that Arians
and Catholics also worship the same God. Job's witnesses now
worship the same God. This is how stupid this is.
But when Basil writes to against the Eunomians, anybody who's
read that would know Basil says, you don't get jack shit, dude,
you're out. This is not even equivalent to the pagan
guy reasoning on an island about some first cause in
Romans won in Acts seventeen, which they all misinterpret. By
the way, this is religion's post Christianity, that no Christianity
that come out of the ethos of Christianity and Arianism
rejecting Christ and Trinity. So that even further shows their
arguments fail because if their argument was just, well, what
about the pagan guy on the island and he reasons
and which I wouldn't even grant that. But even if
I did grant that, that wouldn't apply to Muslims, and
it would still prove that the Vatican Tuo documents are false.
Islam is premised on rejecting, first of all, the deedy
of Christ, that Christ is God and that he is
the second person of Trinity. It is premised on rejecting
the triad. It is primised on rejecting the Sun as
the creator, which John won that he was one say,
so they do not, in fact, worship and serve the Creator.
Remember Romans one was supposed to be their natural theology.
Passage Paul says that the Pagans were supposed to worship
and serve the creator Romans one acts seventeen. Oh but
wait a minute, Jesus is the creator, and they don't
worship Jesus. So they don't worship and serve the Creator.
They serve the creature. And again, Allah is the creator
in Islam. That means a different thing, you idiots. Just
because it's the same word word concept fallacy doesn't mean
the same thing in two different systems. Allah in Islam
traditional Sunni Islam as creator is directly creating and destroying
all things every millisecond. Did you know that that's occasionalism.
That's what they mean by creator, you idiots. By creator,
they mean he's causing directly all evil events and evil actions,
and evil actually has existence in the Kuran. Did you
know that this is who you think is the equivalent
to creator in Christianity, You idiots. Allah the creator of
evil and the occasionalist, destroyer and creator of everything at
every second. If you don't know what occasionalism is, go
look it up. Allah has limited knowledge in seven places
in the Qur'an. Hence, even to me, his whole argument,
Allah's got to get them daily downloads of the New
Info because he's not actually omniscient. Islam as premised on
rejecting that Allah is the father. Allah is not father,
has no son, and the chron explicitly says in see
what section it is on Nissa. People of the book
do not say anything about Allah except truth. The Messiah
is a messenger. He is a spirit created by command
from Allah. Do not say trinity. Allah is not Trinity.
I'm reading the Qur'an, you idiots. These people are actually
arguing that. I mean, it's it's baffling that we have
to argue this. I don't even understand why we have
to argue this. This just blows me away. They still
worship the One True God. It's still the Trinity, even
though they reject the Trinity. Do you remember me, I
asked in the debate. I said, so Jake rejects the Trinity,
but he still worships Attorney. Yes, I mean these people
are insane, man. This is the darkness and the delusion
that this gay cult of Rome gets you. And I
don't even know. I mean, the only way to be
this insane is to have your mind darkened by being
some kind of gay dude. I don't understand. Why else
would you want to be in this dumb cult with
this stuff unless you're yourself some kind of sicko. So
Islam is apostasy from Christ according to the medieval popes.
It is anti Christ, it is demon worship. It is
an infidel, reprobate faith. It is faith less, and so
it fails to attain to the true worship and adoration
of the One God by rejecting the Sun. And of
course one John two twenty three, two twenty two to
twenty three, which is the passage that they would not
even look at. Did you notice they looked away from
the screen when I brought this up. These people hate
divine revelation and what's true. They literally looked away when
I brought this up and I asked them to read
it and exposit the passage for me, and they wouldn't
do it because they hate it, because this refutes them.
They are Antichrist. This is antichrist. One who denies father
and son. No one who denies son has father. Everyone
who confesses the son has the father. Did you notice
they refused to talk about divine revelation because they hate it.
They worship their idle systems of the pope and their
fat dumbas Thomas Aquinas. That's their religion, that's their God,
their mental conceptual schemes that they worship. They're so they're
Sma theologica, that's their deity. They are idolators. That's why
they push idolatry to be equivalent to the worship of
the One True God. Thus they lose their mind when
I bring this up, because this truth destroys their nonsense.
It cuts right through all their bullshit. Remember what we
just saw about the papacy in the Middle Ages calling
for crusades. If you don't exterminate, you won't have your
sins forgiven. Do you have you forgotten this already? It
was not even that long ago. Guys, Pop Bourban, the
Second Council of Claremont. If you die, fight fighting the
Muslim Your sins are forgiven now because of the documents
Attican two, which are magisterial, we can go pray in
the mosques towards Mecca. We can pray in the synagogues now.
The ancient canons of the Church Alphostolic Canon sixty four
and the Canons of Trollo in the first millennium of
Christianity ex communicate any clerics praying and attending synagogues and mosques.
This is because, as Aquinas correctly says in Summa Theologica
two two twelve, to pray at Muslim sites or to
particular rights of other religions demonstrates the inner disposition of apostasy.
I could think of no greater example other than perhaps
the papacy making temporal supremacy necessary for salvation, and then
that being discarded at Vatican two. Through all the religious
liberty stuff, this is probably the next biggest contradiction. If
I was to pick out two big ones, this is
it now? What is the papacy even recently said, even
within a few decades prior to Vatican Two. John Paul
the Second says in his Homily to Jordan Jordanians, God
bless you all Jordan made Saint John the Baptist protect
Islam and the people of Jordan. Now, lying Roman Catholics
read this and said, oh, you don't want to pray
for the people of Jordan. How dare you? You liars?
Why are you people so dishonest? You know that the
problem passage is not praying for the people of Jordan,
you liars. The problem passage is Saint John the Baptist.
Please protect anti christ religion, please protect demonic Muhammad. That's
the problem, you liars. You all lie, your scumbags, and
you know it, and that's why many of your skittles.
You're immoral, you're blinded to deceiving liars because I show
you the passage and you immediately lie, because you do
what your father does. You do the very things that
the Pharisees in John eight do, showing who you actually worship,
showing who the papacy actually worships. When the papacy turns
towards Mecca, Thomas Aquinas is right that their apostates and
they worship Satan, and let's turn their dumbass argument around
on them. Even though the reference is quote Jesus, they're
actually attaining to the worship of Satan, because they've joined
themselves with the spirit of Antichrist, which the medieval popes
correctly said. Mohammad is spirit of Antichrist. He is an Antichrist,
and so you worship together with Antichrist. Congratulations. And that's
why you actle liket scumbacks, because you are inner scumbacks.
You're evil, your evil idolators joined with Antichrist. And you
literally sit here defending this insanity again, John Paul the
Second may John the Baptists protect Islam. This should be
all you need if you were honest with yourself. Let's
compare this to only a couple decades later, an entire
encyclical written against this nonsense from Pious the eleventh. Thus
this being so, it is clear the Apostolic Sea cannot
on any turn take part in the assemblies of non Catholics.
This is what he's talking about. It would be iniquitous,
It would be a surrendering and a compromising of the
truth to partake in the religious rights and assemblies of
non Christian sex and religions and non Catholic sex and religions.
You understand that when he wrote this, he was only
talking about Protestant Acumenism. He wasn't even thinking of praying
in the mosque towards Mecca, you idiots. That's light years
beyond what Pious the Eleventh even had in his mind.
He's saying, we can't go pray with Baptists and Anglicans.
We can't go in their services. Point paragraph ten. It
is clear why the Apostolic See never allows its subjects
to take part in the assemblies of non Catholics. Look
at that, you lying, deceiving Catholics.
Speaker 3: Look at that.
Speaker 1: Pious the Eleventh is not an outstanding example some loan nut.
He's reflecting the same post Tridentine, pre Vatican too teaching
of all of these popes. It's the same stuff reflected
in all of this. Note also that no, I don't care,
nobody cares.
Speaker 3: What LA's not an infallible document.
Speaker 1: Guess what if he says, the Holy See always forbade
this practice, and it's on faith in morals, that's universal
ordinary magisterian, you idiots, According to your system, the God
of the Old Testament, as our great theologian, Saint Maximus
the Confessor said, very clearly, is the Trinity. Abraham was
taught the tity. This means that Trent Horn and Trent
Doe Boy or whatever his name was, and all these
other idiots are automatically canceled. They're automatically done the natural theology.
It's out because natural theology is premise of the idea
that the Old Testament is revealing a Unitarian God. Remember Trent,
this was all Horne's argument. This is the main reason
why everyone thought he lost the debate. One of the
main reasons with me. Guess what Vatican two is the
same natural trench just being faithful to his Vatican two documents.
God appeared to Abraham, who was perfect in knowledge and
already possessed an intellect completely beyond matter and figurations. God
taught him that the immaterial principle of the trinity inhears
in the principle of unity. And for this reason, God
appeared to him as three and spoke as one. That's
talking about God having the meal what God Jesus eating
with Abraham. The Roman calviolcs don't even know these basics.
I brought up biblical basis basics to this guy, and
he laughs and screams and wants to fight when his
own saints his This is a doctor in their own
church teaches what I'm saying for those of you that
are worried. The new computer arrives in a few days,
so all of these latency problems hopefully will vanish soon.
Is Jdi a roma calvic? You must be joking? Are
you serious? What have we been talking about for two hours?
Steve mccleven two dollars. Reconquista was for nothing according to
Batican two. Yeah, why why have martyrs of for all worksmen?
The same guy? Ah Brosey fat. Somebody's the chat said,
how do you get challenged to fight so often? It's hilarious,
not arguments. They just want celebrity boxing matches. Yeah, well,
I mean there's obvious meltdown. He didn't have anything else.
G twenty sixty dollars, Jay, you cooked? Clark Trent the
Superman's scholar Nick RB ten dollars. The Superman analogy echoed
Rome syncretism, where Zeus was Jupiter by another name. Catholics
end up arguing on ancient Pagans when they missed the
reverence relevance of Christ divinity exactly. Faith comes by hearing,
hearing by the word of God. So that's where we
learn that oh, God is actually Jesus. It's not a
Unitarian generic deity. And Abraham didn't worship a unitary engineering duty.
I caught him at five dollars, Trent. It seems like
Brandon Robertson's syop into Rome. I don't know who Brandon Robertson.
It's Joe Swarez fi dollars. I've seen Pastor Vlad Savchuk
say God's coming with Abraham still covers Israel today. Is
this true? Not the modern state of Israel? I mean,
Jews will eventually convert according to most of the Church
fathers in Romans eleven, but that's not the same as
the modern nation state of Israel. H Brosei, I'm patting
myself and anybody in the Chat for calling Cameron out
as a snake. For years, I've never trusted Cameron. I
haven't either, but I did want to do the debate,
H Brozee five dollars. The Direct Council advies you to
follow through with the Tim Gordon debate. He was always
an honest guy. He must be converted. I'm only going
to do it if it's on a big, big channel. Well,
I mean Tim wants that too, so John Kell twenty dollars.
The problem for the Roman Catholics is spiritual, Jay, exactly
what I said in the debate. They scoffed at it
because they're too academic and intellectual to hear that the
real problem is actually spiritual. But that's the point of
today's discussion. Top Jack Abtic ten dollars. It's unfortunate that
Cameron didn't back you up given the DMS. Well, I
don't think Cameron is an honest, but I think he's
a slam ball. Jordan Lovgrin five dollars. Notice how they
always frame it like Muslim's worship the Christian God, not
that Christian's worst of the Muslim God. They don't even
buy into it themselves. Fair question, Doctor Alex Stabrion Stabrion
Nu Daktas twenty dollars. This is awesome, Jay, Thank you, Alex,
Thank you so much. Dog Cody are twenty dollars. They
tried to say that Muslims worship other entities early on
in its development. That would actually cancel out his argument
that Mohammad got God as a referent from the Old
Testament revelation. Remember when he argued that that's in the clip.
The clip that I put up. So if that's the case,
then that cancels out when he tries to argue that
early Muslims worshiped demons. Later Muslims worship a lot, which
is so stupid. The pope in the Middle Ages refers
to them worshiping demons. He's talking about a lot exactly.
That's why it was such a massive fumble. When Tomashevsky
thought that medieval popes were the early phase of Islam,
the debate was already. That was the beginning of the
collapse right there. Twenty dollars ck. I was surprised ron
mcalach Son wanted to defend the magisterium. Why would they
this is one of the best arguments. Of course, they
want to go into linguistic reference and semantic theories, anything
to get away from magisterial contradictions. Which, by the way,
the audience resonated with what we argued. And I knew that.
I knew the audience was going to resonate with me
showing you the Vatican to dogmatic statements versus the medieval
papal dogmas and teachings. And I was correct, And that's
why the audience ninety eight percent in The comments, at
least earlier today were that these idiots fumbled massively Roumi Callys.
Maybe are beginning to realize that they can't. That apple
smacking idiot was insufferable. Roll six five dollars, Superman, Lois Lane,
Oh we were that, al righty Dixie fiend five dollars.
Catholics appeal to Marvel Multiverse fallacies. Exactly, a law is
just another acceptable spin off character for their funko pop
superhero Yeah, exactly, Emilion twenty dollars. Jay exercised patients under
all those insults from Trent. That's admirable. Well, you notice
that anytime that I do something positive by God's grace,
that's ignored and forgotten. But if I ever even slightly
stubbed my toenail is the end of the world. And
I'm the most evil, mean guy. And so yeah, it's
a selective evidence and selective proofs of meanness. Adam Crazy
five dollars. Clark Kent and Superman have the same attributes
Allah in Christ do not. Their analogy doesn't even work,
beautifully said, made by Jimbop ten dollars. The Superman analogy
confuses expose the confusion between Clark Kent a person and
human as a category that persons are in another interesting angle.
There's people have been just really going off on this.
I didn't even really honestly in the debate. All I
wanted to do was get this magisterial point out. And
so when they when I realized that Cameron was acting
like I didn't in the DM specified that that's what
I'm going to debate, I just tuned out because I'm like,
all right, well, all I care about is getting the
magisterial argument out. It was obvious to the audience that
they weren't gonna address it, so then they tried to
spin it into me coming and bringing an irrelevant topic
and they got called lying about that. So that just
doubles the just I mean, that's why I'm telling you
guys like you're not dealing with You're dealing with disingenuous,
bad faith people. That's what That's what I'm saying. Ortho
Toko's five dollars would Roman calolcs have to con see
that Muhammad was referring to the Christian God when God
showed up showing him Ayesha in a dream. Ooh, exactly,
good point. Yeah, these arguments were kryptonite to their gay
superman shit. I'll tell you that right now, more like
super gay, not Superman. Harry Spinis fi dollars you do run,
mccalliics no longer have a leg to stand on. Pink
unicorn seven dollars. Sam thinks that a pink unicorn is
the same god of the Bible. I'm not kidding. Yeah,
I saw his comment, this is what terminal papism looks like.
Swipe right for your receipts. Yeah, exactly. I wish you'd
put that on. I can't get that link out of
stream labs, but I did see Stremiann saying that, and
he's basically saying the same thing that these goobers are saying.
Right now, we got a couple more things I want
to get to from Denzinger because we didn't even get
to that, which which I thought is a relevant argument.
Let's see, let's go to Denzinger. I don't want you
to see seventeen. Let's start with nineteen sixty six and
Donzinger first will work our way back. You know what,
another thing I'm thinking about in regard to this, what
I'm to the camera, what's going Oh the battery did
can you guys hear me? I forgot to plug the
battery yet? All right, give me one just saying just
one second, we'll open up here. Two calls in a second. Here,
I'm almost done with the information. I've actually got a
lot more though. Okay, all right, so we're gonna look
real quick here AT's Denzinger nineteen sixty six. There's not
a whole lot of these, just a few of them.
We'll see how we can get through here. Okay, Whether
a missionary this is eighteen ninety eight responses as the
Holy office under the Pope in Denzinger? Can a missionary
confer baptism on a Mohammedan at the point of death, who,
in his errors he supposes to be in good faith?
The answer is if he has his full faculties, only
by exhorting him to sorel and confidence, not by speaking
about our mysteries for fear that he will believe them,
whatever his faculties are, by saying nothing to him. Since
then these are the possibilities they are listing here, and
we'll get to the reply. Should we say nothing to him?
Should we not talk about our mysteries? If he's lost
his faculties? Should we not baptize them if we not
do anything reply to one in two. No, you may
not confer baptism only because of talking about sorol and confidence.
It is not permitted to a minister of baptism absolutely
or conditionally to Mohammedan's as the decree of the Holy
Office was already given in Denzinger thirteen forty nine. So
let's go to Denzinger thirteen forty nine. Concerning the truths.
This is key. This is under Pope Clement the eleventh
in seventeen hundred to seventeen twenty one, Pope Clement the
eleventh determined what is necessarily to be believed explicitly. And
the reason this matters is that at this time, this
is when the Roman Catholic Church is determining in still
a due to these specific questions about Mohammedan's what things
are necessary to have the faith to be baptized. So
this is what's the absolute minimum according to Rome, for
a Muslim to be baptized, to say that he quote
has the faith right? For example, you might think, well,
does he have to memorize the Creed? Does he have
to start reading the gospels? Does he what are the
two basics. Well, guess what Rome has an answer. Whether
a minister is bound before baptism is conferred on an
adult to explain all the mysteries of the faith, especially
if he's on the point of death, because if we
explain all the mysteries, that might disturb his mind. Or
is it sufficient if a person is at the point
of death, if he promises, if he recovers from the illness,
to be instructed, then we might just go ahead and
baptize him. A promise to learn the faith if you
get better is not sufficient. But now, wait a minute,
why would it not be sufficient? If Muslims and Christians
and Jews all worship the same God and adore him,
it ought to be sufficient because they're referent. Just is God.
Oh but wait a minute. To have the faith, it
is necessary that two mysteries be conveyed to them, namely
the Trinity and the incarnation. So even in traditional Tridentine,
Roman Catholicism post Trent, a Muslim can't just be baptized
because he believes in Allah, even if he's interested in
Catholicism or he wants to be baptized. If Muslims worshiped
and adore the One True God. Via even what Vatican
two says, there's no reason why they couldn't be baptized.
Un Less, even in the seventeen hundreds, the Roman Catholic
Church still noted that to have the faith, you must
at least have a belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
Then you can be baptized. Now do any of these
Roman Catholics even go into Denzinger? I mean, seriously, when
was the last time a Roman Catholic even cited Densinger?
Maybe Scott Hollner or maybe some scholar in a paper
have you ever seen? Maybe they do. I don't watch
these goobers. Do they ever even go into Denzinger? Their clowns, dude?
I mean, I don't know. Maybe leathered Addy does. I
don't watch his gay live chat. Somebody helped me if
they do, because I will be impressed if any of
them ever even cite Denzinger. If they do, I would
be impressed. I mean, when was the last time any
of those goobers cited Denzinger? Thirteen forty nine under Pope
Clement the Eleventh answering what's necessary for Muslims to have
the faith? So if that's necessary to have the faith,
the trendity and incarnation. Then you can baptize a Muslim.
Then Vatican two's documents are false. They do not have
faith in the One God. And I do want to
bring up the well known classic everybody's familiar with this,
but it is worth bringing back up because it reminds
us of the attitude that the Romancolic Church had at
the Council of Florence, which is again very obviously contradictory
to Vatican two. What does Denzinger seven fourteen, which is
the classic cantate Domino section, The Roman Church firmly believes
and professes and proclaims that those not living within her.
Now who makes up the category of those not within her? Hmm?
I wonder how many Roman Catholic specious sophistical arguments can
we get to get around this clear statement those not
within the Catholic Church not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics
and schismatics are well, uh Muslims too, by the way,
because they were just called in the previous century infidel
demon worshipers, they cannot become participants in eternal life and
they will be damned in like a fire unless before
the end of their life, they are added to the
flo what flock, any flock, Protestant flock, Evangelicals, Mormons, the
flock that's explained right here, of the ecclesiastical body of
the Roman Church, aka the papal flock, and do the
works of the Roman Church and its fastings and well
whatever they do, even if he be a martyr for Christ.
Look at this, the Roman Church at Cantate Domino rejects
that you can be a Coptic martyr, an Orthodox martyr,
an Historian, Syriac martyr outside of the Roman Church unless
before the end of your life you are joined to
the papacy. That's what this clear as day says, the
bosom and unity of the Roman Church Church, not Sam
Shimun's made up Apostolic Church, the Roman Church, which at
this time was certainly not in half communion with the
Assyrian Church of the East or anyone else. I mean,
just the idea that they come up with, this idea
of half communion. And by the way, how do I
know that, Because this is the decrees for the separated Easterns.
It literally says right after this the decrees for the Syrians,
the Chaldeans, the Maronites, the Armenians. In other words, everyone
in schism in these groups is damned, even if you're
a martyr for Jesus. Remember all the Coptics coming after me,
and they love Rome because they're all Ecumenists. So they
hate us because we're not Acumenists. Your own Roman buddies,
your own butt buddies in Rome literally said the same
thing that I say. At the Council of Florence, they
changed their doctrine, they lied and changed it at Vatican
two to where now Muslims are part of the plan
of salvation and worship the same gotta how can you
be honest with yourself and not say that Cantate Domino
seven fourteen is night and day with what no stra
atate and LEMANGENTI was sixteen say? And I do do
Roman Catholics even know about Cantate Domino. I learned about
this right when I became a Roman Catholic. This is
one of the first things I learned about in two
thousand and three when I became Roman qual I learned
about what's this Contate Domino and this strong statement of
extra ecclasium nolah salus okay, I had several notes also
on the types of things that we see in Garibee.
I did want to note one last point about and
there's a lot more that we could go into in Denzinger,
but I mean this is good enough. I think this.
By the way, you can easily read the John Paul
people throwing where's this, where's this? John Polst, like I
made this up? Like John Paul, Like you couldn't literally
just type in may Saint John the bout us protect
Islam and get his frickin' homily right here. So I
will link that right here. Now. Another reason why it's
so important to prove that it's the Trinity and it's
Christ in the Old Testament is that that immediately cancels
out Islam. As you guys know from all the debates
that we've been doing with the Muslims for the last
seven years. Whether it's Sheik Rashid or now Zambga forour
or whether it's Paul Williams, or whether it's Daniel Hakikachu
or Jake or any of them, their first presupposition is
that the God of the Old Testament is a Unitarian deity,
which is the very thing that these idiot Roman Catholics think,
by the way, many of them, very few of them
actually think that it's actually the Trinity in Christ because
they're all confused. They don't. The other thing is that
if you noticed Roman Catholics don't like Biblical theology, there's
a handful of them that do. Okay, Scott hand does, Yeah, wow,
So what the rest of them? They're idiots. They don't
know anything about the Bible. All they care about is
they're idyl Thomas Aquinas or whatever other weird thing that
they're obsessed with, like they're orgiastic history, onic women's saints,
whatever weird fetish they have. They don't care what the
Bible says. But the Bible is important because that's actually
the divine revelation, at least the written form, right, and
we all agree it's not going to contrad unless you're
just a mind brain. Den Roe accalth he thinks that
it does. It's important to point out that so many
of these Theophanes are graphic in what they describe. I
don't mean in a sexual way. I mean in the
way that they describe what God's doing. In Genesis eighteen one,
it says Yahweh Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the planes
of memorra as he as Abraham sat at the tent, okay,
and lo, Abraham looked up, raised his eyes and saw
three men standing there, one of.
Speaker 4: Whom is.
Speaker 1: Yahweh Jehovah. Interesting, so God literally appears stands there in
front of Abraham and they have a meal. The thing
that Trent Doherty didn't even know what this was. I
brought this up. He had no knowledge, so like he
didn't even know about the meal with Abraham, and had
we gone into it. I had all these tabs up
to say, you understand, this is saying Yahweh stands there
in front of him. Abraham looks up with his eyes
and sees Yahweh as the form of a man. How
is that possible? And the whole point of this is
that these idiots reject Theophanes. You see, That's what we're
talking These are the All of this is the destruction
of their stupid system if they think about it for
a minute, because if these Theophanies are Jesus, and they are,
then is Jesus in the Old Testament? And the whole
Unitarian natural theology thesis falls away. And by the way,
so does Mohammad's idea that the reference in the Old
Testament is quote God, the God of the Jews, the
true God, God of the Jews in these passages is Jesus.
That's the point. That's why this destroys all of these heretics,
whether it's Trent Horn, whether it's the other Trent, or
whether it's any of these other goobers. What did I
argue to Daniel Haikikachu. That is the exact identical refutation
of these idiots. And they are idiots. They're lazy, ignorant idiots,
and that's why they hate going divine revelations so much.
They will they will go anywhere but to what the
scriptures say. And I will give credit to the Protestants
for recognizing this. When you read through the comments, many
Protestants noted, wait a minute, why are the orth Why
is the Orthodox guy really wanted to go to the
scriptures here? Why is it the Roman Catholics consistently hate
going to the scriptures. They'll do they'll about anything but
going to the scriptures because they don't believe it. That's
why they don't really believe with the script That's why,
know you not the scriptures what does Jesus say to
the they're Pharisees, And so it's the same debate. I'm
having the same debate Jesus has with the Pharisees in
John five to nine. And these idiots are literally representing
the Pharisee position and they don't even know what They
can't even see it because they don't read the scriptures. Hence,
why Jesus says to the Pharisees, do you know you're
not the scripture? You don't even know the scriptures. Religion,
whether it is O or Christianity, actually has continuity with
the religion. Now this is important because this shows Wait
a minute, Old Testament Judaism isn't unitarian. Guess what modern
Jews admit this? Did you know that? Did you know
that modern Jewish scholarship is increasingly admitting whether it's Somer's, Schaeffer, Bujarin, Siegel, Gersham, Scholem.
Oh wait a minute, they're admitting this point. Why because
they aren't interested in Rabbinic Talmudic traditions. They're in academia.
They don't have a bias. I mean, they have some bias,
but they don't have some specific bias to prop up
Unitarian Mimonidean Judaism, and they can look at the text
as Somers does. Who is I think a textual liberal?
And he says, well, it clearly says in Judges that
Yahweh turned his face to Gideon. Yeah, exactly, which refutes
the idea that it's a creature and the tomistic idea
that Theophanes are creatures, or the idiotic natural theology idea
that it's not Jesus in the Old Testament, as these
heretics say, did nobody read justin Saint Justin versus Tripho.
These idiots are making the same arguments as Tripho. Roman
Catholics make the Trifo argument, down to the law and
the profits and that image there. We're not gonna go
too deep into right now, but we'll get into it
here in a little bit, and I might go back
and forth between screenshare and some of the stuff I've
got out here to show.
Speaker 5: The first question I would ask in regard to this
debate is how would a sevenths.
Speaker 1: Now I'm gonna skip ahead of just a little bit
to get past the Muslim part, because the purpose of
showing this is to point out and by the way,
you remember, remember when I brought this up, the Muslims
were too stupid even to understand what I was arguing.
They thought I was arguing that Jews are Trinitarians. No,
I'm saying that Jewish scholarship is admitting that first second
third century Judaism was not unilaterally unitarian. It was all
over the place. There's no light in them. The next
thing that has to be shown, which I may cause
some people's surprise, is that the Old Testament prophets were trinitarian.
Speaker 5: They were not unitarian.
Speaker 1: Judaism specifically in the Second Temple period, was not a
monolithic unitarian enterprise. The question did you hear that? These
idiot Muslims when I made this argument, turned around and said,
so you're saying they believe in the Trinity, that the
Jews believe in the Trinity? Did I say that? I
said they were not totally monolithically unitarian. And that's what
the Jewish scholars say that I saw. Here becomes what
are the teachings of the prophets in the Old Testament.
Did they actually teach as Islam says, a radical unitarianism
or is it something more fluid, or is their differentiation
in Yahweh. In fact, modern Jewish scholarship unanimously is undecided
on this question. There's a lot of Jewish scholarship that
is listed here. For example, Daniel Boyn and later I
have Summer and I have a seagull, and they admit
that in the Old Testament itself not due to christian.
Speaker 5: In the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: Itself, we find many, many passages that show differentiation in Yahweh.
That differentiation is not just located in rabbinic debates. It
also continues in why are we showing this? Because this
demonstrates that, according to their argumentation, and even Trent's argumentation
in the debate, that Mohammed is pulling from Judaic unitarianism.
Oh but wait a minute, if Judaic theology is not unitarian,
then that falls apart, because that means Mohammed should have
been trinitarian and he's not. And again, Islam and the
Muslims think they're restoring the true monotheism of the Old Testament.
That's why it's so devastating to demonstrate that the Old
Testament is not unitarian. To them. That means the whole
project fails. That means Mohammed is not a profit in
continuity with the Old Testament, because the prophets are teaching trinitarianism,
not unitarianism. Therefore, Mohammad is a false prophet because it's
a different god. Mohammad is calling you to other gods.
Jeromi thirteen, Jurami eighteen. That's why this argument is so devastating.
And it's not just devastating to the Muslims, but it's
devastating to their butt buddies, the Roman Catholics, who have
the same position.
Speaker 5: To later medieval debates with Jewish Kabbalah. And you could
see there.
Speaker 1: For example, Gursham Sholam in his book on Kabbalah, he's
the respected cabalist theologian of the Middle Ages or a
scholar of medieval kabbala He points out, for example, to
beat three beginningless lights that are mentioned.
Speaker 5: Now, I'm not a Kabbalist.
Speaker 1: I'm just pointing out that this shows that the Jewish
tradition is not monol thick in its presentation.
Speaker 5: So I'd like to come back then.
Speaker 1: To my screen to me here and point out that
the first display of trinitarian theology in the law of
the Prophets is, for example, here on this whiteboard and
I'm showing this whiteboard because hopefully guys can see this.
Speaker 5: You can screen.
Speaker 1: Right. I tried to fit this on here, but it does.
All the passages are not exactly there. But this is
just a smattering of Theophanes and Trinitarian references in the Torah,
the prophets, and the writings. Okay, so I'm gonna skip
past that and get to back to this point here
and points out that the.
Speaker 5: Triad there.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to argue either that the Old Testament
explicitly uses the words triad. Know all this necessary, as
the Jewish host scholars are admitting, is that the Old
Testament believer spoke of Father, Angel, the.
Speaker 5: Lord, or some of the Man and the Spirit it
in a real distinctive way.
Speaker 1: And they do. Although many in modern and modernity assumed
that the Law and the Prophets were strictly unitarian, Jewish
scholar Daniel Barin notes that early Christianity actually represents a
conservative form of Judaism that sought to remain faithful to
the totality of revelation in the Law of the Prophets,
including the texts to portray differing his hypostaces in God.
Another example of This is a recent Jewish scholarship on
divine fluidity and divine embodiment in the Law and the prophets.
Now again I'm not Jewish. I'm just pointing out that
the admissions of Jewish scholarship are to our position nowadays.
We are in in the Jewish Gospels, the story of
the Jewish christ Notes. For example, just from the example
from the text of Daniel seven, we have the discussion
of the Messiah being divine, the Messiah being in human form,
the Messiah appearing as younger than the Ancient of days,
the divinity of Ancient of days. We have the Messiah
appearing eventually enthroned upon high and being given dominion and
authority over earth. That is the assent and Christian theology. Now,
early on, in the early days of Christianity, there were
already rabbinical debates before Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism completely parted ways,
where you even have people like famous rabbis at Rabbi Akiva,
for example, admitting that there is multiplicity in some sense
in the Godhead. This is covered in Alan Siegel's Two
Powers in Heaven and in Shaefer's Two Gods in Heaven.
Now God is a generic term that can pick out
a specific hypostasis, and it can also pick out a
generic nature. So when it says two gods or two powers,
it's not indicating polytheism. It's merely indicating differentiation in the text.
Now again, I'm not arguing for Kabbala. I'm just pointing
out as an example that Rabbinic Judaism is not a
monolithic Unitarian philosophy. As Summer notes, this is a later
Mamonidean feature and not a Cabalistic or early Christian Judaic feature.
Second tiple, Judaism in Jewish scholarship was not monolithic, it
was not right unitarian, it was fluid, and it did
not admit God to be multiple due to later accretions.
In fact, Siegel and Summers and other admit that you
can have a multiplicity of personae in early Jewish theology
without that necessitating, for example, multiple wills. This is also
seen in the process of the rabbis in their eventual
exclusion of logos theology, which is not a direct import
from Hellenism per se, but rather from the wisdom tax
of the Old Testament, the Solomonic literature, and so forth.
Jewish scholars like Simeon Halevi Sholem. We are in Siegel
and some are admit that rabbinical dialogues and debates on
the Wisdom Logos text and the Merkaba Chariot mysticism that
draws from both the Psalms, Ezekiel Daniel and Enochic literature
all posit various divine embodiments, manifestations, and even incarnation.
Speaker 5: In fact, ancient.
Speaker 1: Rabibitical dialogues discuss the divine Messiah suffering, dying, and perhaps
the atoning. One example is Rabbi Hagalili in Boyarin's Jewish
Gospels discussing the Atoning death. And then my friend, the
Jewish Messianic Christian Kenami has a book Jewish the Jewish
Messiah is is a Judaism versus Judaism debate again, just
illustrating that Judaism.
Speaker 5: Is not a monolithic enterprise.
Speaker 1: Now, as we get back to embodiment, Jewish scholar Benjamin
Summer notes in his Law and the Prophets that they
themselves in many texts that I cited in my big
whiteboard there display what he calls fluidity of Yahwai's ability
to be both imminent and transcendent, as well as manifesting
at certain times and in certain places, in special modes
and in special presences.
Speaker 5: This is not entail or necessitate a change in Yahwe's essence.
Speaker 1: Notice that this is directly antithetical to the metaphysical philosophical
dogmas of Tonism one oh one. God is reduced to
absolute simplicity and act as purists such that he cannot
manifest in time and space. This is why Tomists in
most Roman Catholics reject the Theophanes being really God in
time and space, and rather some sort of created emissary
or a created light. This is their position. Notice that
it is the opposite of the Hebrew revelation as we
see heres or nature, but rather that He's able to
be embodied or to manifest in various and distinct ways.
Some are even emits of The dispute, again, was not
over a strict numerical oneness, because many people in the
ancient world did not always count by strict identity, but
rather by division. Whether this distinction the hypostaces allow for
multiple wills is the real issue, according to Summer, and
that of course is something that Trinitarians reject. We do
not believe in multiple wills in the Godhead. Some are cites.
Many of the holy places in icon iconography replete throughout
the Old Testament, law and profits, including.
Speaker 5: Alterstone's trees, which are Yeahweh.
Speaker 1: They're made holly in anticipation of the temple and tabernacle
liturgical services, which will also embody Yahweh above the arc
of the chicina and so forth a cloud well, at
the same time not embodying the divine essence or in
any way altering Yahweh. Oh, that's the essence inner distinction
from the Hebrew revelation. The metaphysics of the God of
the Hellenic Roman Catholic philosophers is not the personal Yahweh
who manifests in time and space, standing like a man
at the tabernacle eating a meal with Abraham. That's an
offense to the philosopher minded idiots in Rome. Oh, could
God be in time and space and have a meal?
God is an absolutely simple monad. It's because you don't
have God. It's because you don't understand that the I
Am is a person, I am He. It's not an
I am monad, I am essence. This as a side note,
the Quran also appears to have inadvertently left these references
to this special presence in texts like six seventy one
to eighty eleven seventy eight.
Speaker 5: Now the challenge then, as I would put it to day.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's enough of that. You get the point
that this refutes Islam and the tonistic idiotic position of
these people. At the same time, now, I also wanted
to distress that he didn't even seem to be aware
that the New Testament teaches the Trent dude, The New
Testament teaches that every time Old Testament prophets were speaking,
who was it speaking through them? Oh, the Spirit of Christ.
So every psalm David wrote, he wrote by the spirit
of Jesus, according to Peter and one Peter one to eleven.
And this goober said he didn't know Jesus.
Speaker 3: Jesus was the first Satry Jewish past Stein Rabbi.
Speaker 1: That ain't the Angel Lord, No, it is Jesus. And
that's why you're not in the faith. That's why you're
heterodox orbo bro rebuke. Roman Catholic claims that sincerely, Muslims
worship God, Yes we are doing that. But Dana Chan
of five dollars do you recommend telling friends and family
about bitcoin. I'm worried that they won't listen. Well, just
tell them, and then when they don't listen, remind them
and then eventually, So the way this works is they
don't ask about bitcoin until it's at a cycle top,
and so then that's the worst time to buy. But
might as well just tell them. Actually, it's never a
bad time to buy. So well, Emmanuel one hundred Mexicans.
Let me tell you about my neighbor Clark. I read
him about him in a Superman comic book. They got
him all wrong. Roman Catholic's confirmed that I'm talking about
Clark because it's the same comic book. David Hawk ten dollars.
Trent's argument wrestle on the claim that Islam is based
on Jewish Christian revelation exactly, but it's not. I mean,
it claims to be, but it's not. In reality, Islam
is a combination of Arab folklore, Christian pagan is. It's Gnostic,
Talmudic pagan and Old Testament texts and beliefs, all mixed
into a hodgepodge. The only people who say this just
don't even understand Islam. A s Brazi five dollars. To
be fair, I was talking trash back to the Roman Catholics.
But if he's allowing them to disrespect you all debateing,
he should be able to go back and forth. I
don't know, did you get banned or something you shouldn't
get banned? Ismail Scelario five dollars. Jail every channel? How
can I join your members on YouTube? You just go
to the tab for members and you click join, or
it should be on the front page of my channel.
I don't ever see that though, like the well, I
guess I could sign out of my channel and see
it is the only way for me to really see that.
But like it should be right here, see this tab
memberships should be that right there, members, and then you
can come over here and this is all members content here.
You can also sign up with the website too. It's
basically at the same price, but obviously there's more stuff
on the website because over here on YouTube, I got
we were demonified, we were de moneyfied for about five
years over here. So Julian ten dollars premise won the
Trinity is God premise too. Muslims do not worship the
Trinity Therefore, Muslims don't worship God. I think, ultimately is
this simple, and they just want to play a bunch
of games to make this papal nonsense work. Make the
heart of these pap these papers dull and their ears
heavy and shut their eyes. Yeah, exactly, They're essentially just talmudists.
Smoothie five dollars. Can I get a tattoo in Orthodoxy?
Just I don't. I mean, I don't think there's anything
inherently wrong with it, but I wouldn't do it. Jaguar
three dollars, just because I don't. I'm not a big
I'm not into tattoos. That's that's why Jaguar three dollars.
Why is it that Hindus don't worship the true God? Well,
Vatican two says they do so. For Hindus, Brahaman is
the supreme, ultimate reality, eternal, unchanging, infinite source, goal, purpose,
et cetera. Well, I think that's the reasoning of Vatican
two is that potentially it is kind of almost to
Monotheism as well. Bergen five dollars. Jay used to be
a Muslim. I've been thinking about becoming Catholic Orthodox. Honestly,
Catholics hide the truth like Muslims. No, they exactly, They
act exactly. Like actually, all these groups that Muslims, Jews,
and Roman Catholics are they're all the same, so they
act the same way. Brandon Greer's five dollars Superman fallacy,
it smails Salio. No, we did, though, Jacob Crocker five dollars.
Why even debate it? They can see that Muslims are
burning in hell without Jesus. In the opening statements, it
was all redundant. I mean, that's why I said, what
really matters here is what Vatican two is pushing, and
the delusion that it's pushing. And then they're like, Vatican
two is irrelevant. Oh okay, so the magisterium of your
church is are relevant? Yes, it is. Zors two dollars.
We'd be microwaving hot dogs pinos three dollars, what's up dogs?
Crazy making from papist in all the bizarre week ass
coping drinking reminds me of gaslighting victims of narcissistic abuse.
If you destroy people's ability to perceive reality, yeah, this
is really what colts do, and that's exactly what's going on.
This is a sad and terrible thing to do. To people,
paipisinm is evil. Yeah, it gets people denying reality to
maintain the system. It's like this. I don't know if
it's apocryphal or not, but there's this famous thing attributed
to Hegel. You know. Hegel supposedly says, you know, my
system is like, you know, the ultimate explanation of reality.
And one of the students says, well, Hegel, what if
there's facts that contradict your system? And Hegel says, if
a fact contradicts the system, and the fact be dan
because the system is truth. That's whether that's true or not.
That Hagel said that, it's a perfect description of what's
going on here. Gordon bops fi dollars. Traditional Catholics will
handwave all this on the basis that Vatican two is
promulgated as a royal council. Yeah, of course that's all bullshit,
because I have a whole talk and list all the
documents that Vatican to is magisterial and it's binding, and
I will link that for you right here. If you
look at the show description of this video, it shows
the documents as well. I gotta go ahead and go
to the go to the calls because we got to
get up and go to church tomorrow, so I can't
do this much longer. Ismail Salario two dollars is world docs.
He's growing it in Central America. Yeah, I mean, I
think you know, people are gonna want authentic stuff, and
nobody wants this just gay papal stuff except these internet lunatics.
They are the only people that care about this and
all of their insane cult followers. So people are gonna
want the real thing. And so I say, just let
them keep being what they are, because the more that
they keep being what they are, which is Antichrist, the
more they're going to send people our way. So let
them go go for it. Accelerate your own accelerationist collapse.
Roman calics have had it, petty ten dollars. Clark Kent
analogy works with Allah because Allah is the greatest of deceivers.
That's exactly what I said, JV. Free blocking is gay, Jay,
Then I guess I'm gay because I actually profusely and
liberally block people. And your comments were getting super annoying,
and don't even bother super chatting because I'm not going
to read them anymore. Cody are twenty dollars. They try
to say Muslims worship other entities that we read that
Bananantine emperor. No, that was last lesture. We read that
one too, Jake twenty dollars. There was a moment in
the belligerent Trent rant that reminded me of a boomer
that I met twenty years ago who dropped out of
the Jesuit priesthood. He admitted the Aristotelian metaphysics, he admitted
the He admitted the Aristotelian metaphysics of it of Rome,
but says they're all practically atheist. Probably true. Cody won
Our's Roman Catholic actually tell me Florence doesn't count as
a contradiction because it doesn't name Muslims. It doesn't have to, because,
as we saw in the slides, at that time, the
papacy consistently called Muslims pagans and infidels. I told him
that the exclusive claims of Cantati Domino were clear. This
is the level that we're at. Yeah, I mean, I
had a Roman Catholic told me that the papacy praying
in the mosque towards Mecca doesn't count as apostasy because
they didn't actually become Muslims. So to commit apostasy, you
have to actually become the religion, so the action of apostasy.
So basically, if you want to commit apostasy like fifty
times a day, it's not apostasy as long as you
just go back to being Roman Catholic. It's so silly,
this is, but I mean, this is if you ever
read rabbinic commentaries and the games that the rabbinical nonsense
relies on, these Roman Catholics are identical. They're Talmudic Lunatics.
They do is the exact same bananaitin in PARTU New
Catholic contradiction unlocked. What's the point of the age of
reason for children to receive the Eucharist if it doesn't
matter if you know Him not to worship him. Ooh,
another thing that we were writ about. Exactly, Yeah, if
knowing God is not a condition of worshiping and loving
him some specific sense, then there's no reason for children
to be denied the Eucharist exactly. And why would Muslims
be denied baptism without knowing the Trinity and the incarnation
as the Holy Office and the statements under Pope Clement
said that we read soul toon dollars Catholic teachings saying
that Muslims worship God and demons at the same time.
By Catholic rules, the older consistent doctrine prevails. Thus Muslims
don't worship the same God unless Catholics admit the magistrum
is incoherent. Well, that's the point. You don't get to
pick and choose magisteriums. Remember they have a show sponsor,
which is chalk dot com, shoq dot com. Let's see
here's up here, Wisdom, what's up? I'm mute, Wisdom, I'm mute.
I needed what's on your mind? Yeah, I just wanted
to run it past you.
Speaker 6: Guys about the whole Islam is just scientism for dummies.
Speaker 1: What you thought zion Well, I mean Zionism is an
atheist political movement. I don't know if I would equate
a weird death cult to a kind of an atheist
socialist political movement. I mean there would be some overlaps,
but I think there's pretty significant differences too. But interesting question.
But anantine emperor was up with Jake, what's on your mind?
Speaker 6: I want to call it something that was pretty funny
and the whole you know, Trent being how do I
call it slimy? So at the beginning of the debate,
he very clearly pointed out that he quote appreciated the
fact that you brought up the paper, Oh yeah, yeah.
And then later he said that the problem with what
you're arguing is that you didn't make an argument.
Speaker 1: At the beginning. Oh yeah, Wait a minute, I thought
he appreciated it, but then it wasn't an argument, so
he didn't really appreciate it. So he was being like
something like this.
Speaker 6: This happens so often in these debates where it's very long,
and I get it from your side because it's probably
harder to see. What was really annoying is that people
can't follow like the entirety of it because they have
TikTok brain now and then they just see the dunking
moments and you don't notice the little things like did
you see how.
Speaker 1: For example, Michael Lofton.
Speaker 6: Just like showed that Sam Sherman is not really Catholic.
Speaker 1: No, I don't keep up with what do you do?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 1: It's funny.
Speaker 6: So this is just another example of people not noticing
the little things people say. But for example, Sam's been
saying for years the Catholics let him take the Eucharist.
He never says he is taking the Eucharist in the context. Yeah,
you just got to notice the ticks that people give
off in these debates.
Speaker 1: Well, I remember somebody brought it up the other day, liked,
how do we even know he even goes to a
Catholic church?
Speaker 6: Well? Yeah, and and the thing was basically Sam Lake
just completely flipped out on Michael. So I was curious
to see what Michael was saying. And some of Sam's
supporters have basically been saying like, oh, he's not Catholic,
and I'm like, I've knew this for like two years.
He keeps saying I take the Eucharist at a Catholic
church because they let me, which in any context, if
you're since he was born at a Seran Church of
the East, you know he could just have not done it,
like not done the profession of faith.
Speaker 1: But anyways, oka anute. So I'm confused. So Lofton says
Shimon's not Catholic, and what's what's the argument? What's Lofton's
argument that.
Speaker 6: Isn't One a bunch of people ended up saying that
to him. And two, when you kind of look at
the way that Sam phrases everything. He never really explicitly
says that he did the profession of faith.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6: And my whole point is, basically, there's a lot in
these long form debates if you actually pay attention the
entire time. Every time I've seen you get pissed off,
it's actually warranted because basically he said he appreciated it,
and then said, you weren't making a real argument, and
you showed up with a preparation to the debate, and
the guy who is hosting the debate then pretends like
the wording he used wasn't extremely ambiguous on the fact
that you needed to provide the documents. And I'm like,
I just don't understand how anyone can come away from
these debates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean Cameron, Cameron is always thank you. Yeah,
Cameron has always been slimy. I expected slimy tricks. I
just didn't think I expect him to act like I
didn't mention in the DMS literally that twice I was
going to talk about magisterial statements about Islam from Rome,
I said, I mentioned in the DMS twice, and then
today Cameron gas lights his brain dead audience by putting
the tweets out as if the tweets don't say exactly
what I said.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it was disgusting. I saw that community post and
my whole my whole point is I was actually thinking
earlier today, after you finished that debate. I woke up
and Actors was like last night, and I just go,
I don't see how you even want to do this anymore.
Because I'm not saying I don't want to listen. I
just don't want to listen to these debates because outside
of the decent exchange that happened with a not father
and islator, like, we can't get through an hour thirty
minutes without people not seeing basic verbal tic contradictions. And
then the comments are insufferable, the reactions are insufferable, and
I'm like, I kind of like the t the Twitter
debates more because like people act like because it's a
time response or anything like it's better. I'm like, it's not.
You guys don't have attention, right.
Speaker 1: I agree, Yeah, great points, Benantine, And I also I
agree with you too that probably I mean, I just
don't even know what, like what how many times do
we have to do the papacy debate. I'm not faulting Ubi.
Ubi's the best at that, like I mean, and it's
always the same stuff where they want to get really
deep and then people want to bitch and whine and
complain and not actually deal with the arguments like voice
or reason, being like I don't have the burden of proof.
The burden the proof is unusual. We don't have to
talk about catholic It's like, no, dude, come on, you
gotta be talking about Catholicism. It's a debate between two
claims about which one is Catholic. So this whole game
of like I don't have the burden to proof, that's
just slame debate tactics where people try to get around
having to actually, you know, defend anything or argue anything.
But that was a really good point, ben Antine. I
didn't even notice the slimy hypocrisy of him pretending like
he really appreciated the arguments that I brought about magisterium,
and then later on he's like, you haven't brought an argument.
Stulli jitu stulli juitum. Anyway, I want to play this
little clip of what I thought was a really funny
part in the debate.
Speaker 2: The same way that Lois Lane can refer to and love.
Love is very much like worship and a door.
Speaker 1: Right. What does he say, love? He says it twice?
Love Love is very much like worshiping a door. Let's
hear him say it again.
Speaker 2: Refer to and love. Love is very much like worship
and a door, right, Clark Kent, even though she explicitly
rejects that Clark Kent can fly.
Speaker 1: Okay. The difference is that the analogy fails because the
Muslim knows the Trinity and the incarnation and the deed
of Christ, which are the essential or some of the
essential identifiers, and explicitly says not that God, not Jesus,
not Trinity, not him. That's why this dumb analogy doesn't work.
Speaker 2: Now, Jesus, you tell me what's the.
Speaker 1: Unitarian Pharisees when he's debating with them? You do not
have the love of God and you do not have
the Father?
Speaker 6: What what?
Speaker 2: What relevance is that?
Speaker 1: Of what is that?
Speaker 2: I'm not answering that question. I'm not answering.
Speaker 1: Of what relevance is that? So a biblical example of
a Unitarian being grilled by Jesus, which fits your perfect
case you're not going to answer it exactly. And then
he says, I never said love.
Speaker 5: Really, you won't answer your question because it refuses the
very thing that you just look at.
Speaker 1: This demon. It's a unitary and position that equivalent to Islam.
It's the Pharisees who say we have the Father, and
Jesus says, you do not have the Father, nor do
you have the love of God in you. It's in
my slides you can refer to. In worship. You said,
yet they have the love of God. Jesus says, you
do not have the love of God.
Speaker 2: Explicitly, no, I didn't say that.
Speaker 1: Yes you did. You said that, You said that you
can still love God. You said, yes, you have love
a word he said, love and adore. And he says, no,
I didn't say that.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to the beginning the same way that
that Lois Lane can refer to and love. Love is
very much like worship and a door, right, Clark Kent,
even though she explicitly rejects that Clark Kent can fly and.
Speaker 1: Again, loving God, adoring God, worshiping God, they can all
be equivalent terms. I mean, this is just such a
this is this is it ended up being temp level stuff.
I thought that this was going to be like a
high tiered thing, and it was tea dump soul by
the way I was. I didn't see the rest of
it after I left, but people were saying that when
it was FDA that they actually denied the real presence.
I didn't hear this part, but I mean, it doesn't
surprise me.
Speaker 4: They denied that there was an empirical experience of divinity
at like the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: So what is the Eucharist if it's not is it
a mental Eucharist? That's the Protestant position.
Speaker 4: Toma Swisky tried to run into, like the whole idea
of like, what of my empirical experience is of the
created accidents?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: So he experiences the taste of the wine and the
texture of the bread.
Speaker 1: So my body is not partaken of the uncreated energies.
Now this is I mean, yeah, yeah, exactly, go ahead.
Speaker 4: That was the route they were trying to take there.
But so I have a couple of syllogism that I
put together and I just wanted to because you know,
they're like adamant about wanting syllogisms, which I you know,
to a degree I get they do help clarify what
someone is saying to a degree, But so the the
first one is an attempt at a counter to Trend's
like disagreement argument. So I felt like the conversation between
him and and I Father Deacon Ananias was on like
the level of description of a same subject with like
different predicates. But couldn't you force him back to like
a transcendental position, like where you're talking about transcendental preconditions
of experience, and then you can show that that disagreement
necessitates that it's not the same subject. So, for example,
for two positions to disagree transcendentally, they must posit mutually
exclusive necessary preconditions for the possibility of experience, reason, or existence.
The Christian account of God is trihapostatic, relational love is
intrinsic being absolute personal logos, and the Islamic account as
absolute mon ad no eternal relationality and will as primary
proposed mutually exclusive foundations for why anything exists or why
reason it's possible at at all. So thus their disagreement
is not over predications of a shared.
Speaker 1: Now, this is actually the one of the points in
the Garribee paper is that it's it's what's actually being
disagreed upon is actually more like two mutually exclusive sets.
And just because the two different sets have some things
in common, it doesn't follow that there's one common set.
So in other words, if I have if I have
a string of numbers, it's a set like you know,
ten digits, and I put them in brackets. That's my set.
And then I have the same numbers and digits in
another set, but I remove one of them. They are
two different sets, even though they have ninety sent in common. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay, so Garibi makes that point in the paper.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess. Yeah. Garibi shows that Swinburne's core attributes
argument doesn't work as a tomis because God is not
a being like other empirical beings. This is where Father
Deacon is trying to argue at the beginning. God is
not a natural object like all other objects, whereby you
could get the same object by getting half of it
right and half of it wrong. In the case of God,
it's more like a set. And that's why the Church Fathers,
for example, exclude Arians or Muslims by rejecting trinity and
due to Christ right. Basil thinks that if you don't
have trinity, You're it's not the same god.
Speaker 4: Right, And so that's where I was trying to bring in,
is that it's actually a rival over which absolute is
even capable of grounding the entire debate and conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I don't think that. And so with Trent,
because he's a kind of a foundationalist and he's they're empiricists, like,
he's not going to grant any of that like transcendental stuff.
He'll be like, no, I don't believe any of that. Okay,
they just have a like as toamas and empiricists like
they just have a very naive, basic bitch account of
how we you know, cognate and how we know things
and how we it's just basically it's just empiricism in
aerosols it.
Speaker 4: And then I saw Cameron pestering Luigi for a syllogism again,
so I just went ahead and gave him one. And
it's kind of long, and I don't think you should
really need this to get your point, But you tell me,
if this is kind of where you were going with
your argument, you probably I might have made it a
bit more modest than you would. I don't know, So
the the Catholic Magisterium has at various levels of authority.
Speaker 1: I was about to do. I was about to say, Okay,
I'll do a simple solois with the Magistium. But yeah,
it's exactly where I was going to.
Speaker 5: Go with the Catholic Magistarium.
Speaker 4: At various levels of teachings, US worship false gods or demons,
and I have lattering forward run and you know your
references that you showed premise to the same Catholic magistarium
also teaches that Muslims, together with Christians, adore the one
merciful true God that's tat and Themagentium by Catholic principles,
the faithful oh religious mission of intellect and will even
to non infallible teachings of the authentic Magisterium Vagentum twenty five.
So the first conclusion would be that Catholics are bound
to submit religious assent to mutually contradictory teachings exactly the
true God or demons.
Speaker 6: Really yeah, well that keeps going because I'm trying.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to show him how it's relevant to the
question like do they worship the same God or not?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Okay, well, I mean you're talking can to a guy
who got I assume from doctor Trent the Bayesian mathematical
proof of the papacy. So that's where that remember when
we made fun of this like two years ago, That's
where this comes from.
Speaker 4: Yeah, But so Premise four. Then, after the first conclusion
is by principle of non contradiction, it's impossible that Muslims
both worship the true God and worship demons. Therefore, either
the magistarium contradicts itself on matters of divine worship, undermining
its reliability, or Catholics must reject one magisterial strand, undercutting
the very basis they used to claim that we worshiped
the same God. So Primise fiv. By Catholic epistemology, when
faced with apparent contradictions and a non infallible teachings, interpretation
must favor what has been taught everywhere in by all
fact that's from the probably Gonna Butcher, this Vicentinian cannon,
and then consistent with the ordinary universal magisterium through time.
So it must be both of those things, unless the
earlier consistent teaching is definitively overturned by solemn dogmatic reversal,
which we don't have so premise six. Therefore, Catholics are
bound either to accept the long standingsistent teaching that Muslims
do not worship the true God, or else face the
crisis of magisterial coherence. Thus, even by their own principles,
they should still accept.
Speaker 1: That Muslims don't worship the same God.
Speaker 4: And therefore, you know, your argument does apply.
Speaker 1: To the thought exactly. Yeah, I mean, and that's why
they wanted to say that the topic wasn't magisterium, when
that's exactly what two of my dms said. It would
be about, thank you so much, vain, what's up in?
Speaker 5: And hey, what's up?
Speaker 7: So if you wanted if you like scrub through the
debate and like notice basically like you know, at a
at like a high speed, notice like how animated in
the movements are of you know, all four of you,
Like in the corners, you'll see that Frank is like
significantly like going by, like you know, he was disrespectful,
like eating and like throwing his hands up, leaning back
and forth like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I meant.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Trent, Yeah, just that and I just noticed that.
Uh then, And also with the Superman analogy, this is
the last thing I want to say, what is that? Uh.
The other reason why it doesn't work is because whether
or not Clark Kent or Superman or Kyle L can
fly does not determine the per that who Kyle L
or Clark Kent or Tuperman is as a person, because
Superman can like lose that ability as he does and
still retains who he is as a person. So that's
not like a rigid designator. I don't know why they
would say that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember FDA even brought up that the term
God is a flaccid designator and I repeated that to
the same statement, and they were like.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 1: Guy was like, why not? What do you think what
does it referred to? And I mean he seemed to
just think that it was a sufficient reply to say, well,
Mohammad is just saying that it's the same reference in
the Bible. Okay, But if the Bible reference is the
Trinity in the Old Testament, then