Speaker 1: You may think the main things to you, But I'm
just You're the big daddy.
Speaker 2: I'm your father, big Yu, I'm your father, big guy.
Clean up to.
Speaker 1: Tomato, tyrannical ranger.
Speaker 2: You're so high you're candy even tom Are you trumping?
You're so high you candy even time? Are you trunking?
Speaker 3: What is a tyrannical rainer?
Speaker 4: What is a tyrannical rainer? What is a tyrannical rainer?
Speaker 2: What is a tyrannical rainer?
Speaker 5: You're so high, you candy?
Speaker 2: Are you drunking?
Speaker 4: Josh?
Speaker 6: You came?
Speaker 7: Are you drumming?
Speaker 8: You may think of being mean to you, But I'm
just a debate daddy.
Speaker 9: I'm your father figure, I'm your father.
Speaker 1: Figures nical ranger.
Speaker 2: Josh, you're kidd Are you drunk?
Speaker 4: Josh your kid?
Speaker 2: Are you drunking?
Speaker 10: What is it alannical rainer?
Speaker 11: What is it?
Speaker 1: Anical rainer? What is it's irannical rainer? What is it
irannical rainer?
Speaker 5: Yr you came?
Speaker 12: Are you drunk?
Speaker 9: You're so high you can't even talk?
Speaker 13: Are you drunk now?
Speaker 5: You're so high you can't even talk?
Speaker 14: Are you drunken?
Speaker 12: Now?
Speaker 15: If you're sharing a hotel room with friends. You're also
sharing a bathroom, mad.
Speaker 3: Still a monkey?
Speaker 8: Climb up on a tree?
Speaker 6: What you do up there? Why are you scared?
Speaker 8: Why are you running in from every debate that you count?
Now you learn from Andrew, you do and from me?
Speaker 9: Mad deal of monkey.
Speaker 8: You like them female monkeys with them bananas between their trees.
Hang down up that dow brown, Maddil monkey. What you're
doing to me, Manduel monkey? What you're doing to me, madam?
Speaker 16: What you're doing with me?
Speaker 8: May What you're doing with me, Madla monkey? What you're
doing with me, Madila monkey.
Speaker 6: What you're doing to me?
Speaker 8: Make what you're doing with me, Madla monket?
Speaker 10: What you're doing to.
Speaker 9: Me, Madala monkey?
Speaker 8: What you're doing to me, Madala monkey?
Speaker 6: What you doing to me?
Speaker 8: Madam? Mokay, what you're doing to me.
Speaker 6: Monkey?
Speaker 13: What you doing to me Mandela monkey? Mock mad mokey.
Speaker 17: Oh it was amazing.
Speaker 5: I love it the much.
Speaker 17: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 3: Shout out to Amid the Ruins fourteen fifty three, coming
back from a long hiatus with those bangers that he
made through AI.
Speaker 18: It's that time again, late night debate. It's been a
long time since we had a late night debate. Sometimes
late night debates result in rabies infested feral people calling in.
Sometimes we get tyrannical rainers. Did you like the tyrannical
rainer song?
Speaker 3: I vibed with it? What even is a tyrannical rainer? Exactly?
The heck goes up wine mom even talking about you're
tyrannical rainer and you're arrogant as beep. Anyway, Matt Dlamlca,
what's done?
Speaker 12: Man?
Speaker 3: I like that blues version of Matt Dolomocky. That was crazy.
All right, we're gonna open it up pretty soon, and
that's because today was an interesting series of events. I
didn't actually plan to do an open debate, but when
I saw this goober child, and I will call him
a goober child. He is the firstborn son of goober
where's he at? Tyson Hockley. Now, this is the dude
that called into Sam Shimun some months back and they
had a conversation where Sam explained why Islam was not
the most sensible religion. And it didn't last too long.
I think it was about a fifteen to twenty minute discussion.
Sam Shimun presented some of the more obvious issues that
are pretty well known in Islam, and Tyson said, well,
you know what, I'm still leaning towards Islam. It makes
the most sense, although religion feels weird to me, and
then he says, follow me on my journey. Now, this
was a post intending to get audience and to get traction,
and if you go over to his page, it's all
sucking up to Sneako and the tates he wants to
be sneak O more than anything else. And he looks
kind of like a little bit of a potato head boy,
if you know what I mean. He looks like he's
a little bit of a down potato syndrome.
Speaker 6: Boy.
Speaker 3: It's hard to tell because his face is a little
weird looking, but and he talks like he's got I
don't know, nasal issues, but maybe that's the potato syndrome
that he has. Anyway, he's a Canadian potatium. And he
thinks that Islam is just so cool because it's based
and it's like you got Bugatti and all this kind
of stuff that comes with Islam, with little to no
knowledge of actually what Islam is about. And he said,
I don't have the knowledge set to debate you, although
he's ready to call me out When I posted a
video saying that Islam makes no sense? What was his reply?
As with every sort of weak willed, just effeminate man
ish person out there, he immediately goes for the virtue,
signaling that aren't you the guy who was being racist
to Muslim Lantern? Being racist? First of all, what does
that even mean to be racist to someone? And what
he's referring to is me impersonating Muslim Lantern's voice. So
these z gen Z Canadian children are so brainwashed they
think an impersonation is racism. And of course he was
so proud that the Muslims came to his rescue to
like and to share this for him that he said,
I got quote ratioed. However, all of the comments are
actually blasting making fun of him.
Speaker 6: So even though he did.
Speaker 3: Get Muslim ratio help here, every comment is just savaging
him all the way down about how silly he is.
And this is not a serious person obviously. If I
come over here to his page, it's all about how
he wants to be. Sneak O Sneko will follow me
if I get twenty thousand on X. Tristan Tate told
me soon that he might come on my podcast. So
I feel sorry for this. I mean, he looks like
he looks like any white woman in the WNBA. He's
got a face of any WNBA woman that's white, and
so he's got some kind of down potato syndrome going on.
I feel sorry for the boy. I mean literally, look,
he looks like a damn hobbit over here. He's a Canadian,
and why he was just to the moon because I
mentioned him today. In fact, he had to make a
video and guess what's in his video doubling down that
I'm racist and that I was mean to the absolute
snake who edited the videos because he did so bad
in the debate. In other words, the debate that's so
bad that you can't find it on Rumble and Sneako's
channel anymore. That debate that I was so terrible at,
which has gone from Rumble as far as I can tell,
that Muslim Lantern had to edit out of context. I
was so mean, and so all these people have is
nothing basically anyway, So this person is not a serious person.
He also says in the video that when he went
to a Muslim scholar, the Muslim scholar proved that Sam
Schamun was lying in his critiques of Islam. M sure, yeah, right,
who believes that? So potato Canadian boy, I don't think
we'll come to debate. I've asked it. I asked them
multiple times to come tonight to defend Islam. And the
weirdos in his chat were their own special kind of
slow boy. In fact, one of them was a perennialist hermeticist,
so not Muslim and not Christian, but was cheering on
and championing the victory of Islam over the West. You
can't make this up. These people are so stupid or
their bots or FEDS or something that they're cheering on
the destruction of their own civilization with this stupid cult
that is literally only like you have to be under
one hundred IQ to fall for Islam being charitable. It's
so dumb. And to remind you of how dumb it is,
I thought this was a good brief video for example,
that David Wood. David would respied, replied to Hamza, who
himself is another level of goober. And I mean, I
just want you to listen to some of this video.
We don't have to do all of it. We're just
we're just gonna be a few minutes of it to
see the obvious nonsense when it comes to something obvious
like the Islamic dilemma and the basic points that are
reiterated for the thousand time. Remember we did a whole
six hour livestream where we did an experiment to see
if any of the Muslim callers could restate or understand
the hypothetical situation. If you remember, none of them could
for six hours straight of Muslim callers, they were incapable
of understanding a hypothetical. And so this religion then kind
of like Mormonism for white people. It's like Mormonism is
like prairie Islam, prairie muffin Islam. Like you have to
be a special kind of stupid to believe and to
not understand the Islamic dilemma and how obvious and basic
it is.
Speaker 6: And so what do they do?
Speaker 3: Well, as you'll see here, Hamza for example, has a
creative way to answer it, but the answer is actually
dumber than the other attempts.
Speaker 19: The shorts that's supposed to refute the Islamic dilemma. Let's
watch Hamsa completely contradict his own God, his own prophet
and his own books. Hamsa from Hamsa's den is the
simone Biles of mental gymnastics. Let's take a look at
his floor root Sine on the Islamic dilemma. The Islamic
dilemma is an argument that can take many forms, but
in its most basic form, it goes something like this.
The Karan affirms the inspiration, preserve, and authority of the
Jewish and Christian scriptures, but the Quran contradicts the Jewish
and Christian scriptures on fundamental doctrines.
Speaker 3: Now, there are only two possibilities here.
Speaker 19: Either Jews and Christians have the inspired, preserved authoritative word of.
Speaker 3: God, or we don't. It's one or the other.
Speaker 19: On one horn of the dilemma, if we have the inspired,
preserved authoritative word of God, Islam is false because Islam
contradicts what we have. On the other horn of the dilemma,
if we don't have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God,
Islam is false because Islam affirms the inspiration, preservation, and
authority of what we have. So if we have the
reliable and authoritative word of God, Islam is false. If
we don't have the reliable and authoritative word of God,
Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false. Therefore Islam
is false. How do da organdists respond to this air
type argument the same way they respond to every argument
smoke and mirrors. Hamzah posted a short that's supposed to
refute the Islamic dilemma. Let's watch Hamza completely contradict his
own God, his own prophet, and his own books.
Speaker 14: My man here.
Speaker 20: Yeah, he's claim that upon him I tested the veracity
and the truthfulness of the ingeal cut.
Speaker 19: I also claim that Muhammad affirmed the jail. In jail
is the Arabic word for gospel. It's a transliteration of
the Greek word yuangelian, meaning gospel. Muhammad affirmed the jail,
so did Allah.
Speaker 20: Upon him, I tested the veracity and the truthfulness of
the ingeal cut, which he did, Yeah, he did.
Speaker 19: Mohammad did attest the veracity and the truthfulness of the Angel,
and so did Allah. We agree, Christians and Muslims agree
on this, But our Dawa friends know all too well
that the angel we have contradicts the Koran on Jesus, death, resurrection,
and divine nature. So they're going to have to claim
that the Angel is something we don't have.
Speaker 14: This is then.
Speaker 6: Testament.
Speaker 3: What does the meaning of a jail?
Speaker 6: What's the jail?
Speaker 12: Good?
Speaker 6: Question?
Speaker 19: If it's not the Gospel that Christians have, because what
we have contradicts the Koran, what is it?
Speaker 21: What is the Islamic concept of So that's what I'm
asking you.
Speaker 6: You're the mussulim.
Speaker 3: You tell me what's Islamic concept?
Speaker 5: What is the book?
Speaker 6: I explain?
Speaker 9: I'm going to explain.
Speaker 21: So the Quuran makes it clear the Engel is a
book that was given to Jesus from God.
Speaker 6: What does the Quran make clear?
Speaker 21: So the Quan makes in Gel is a book that
was given to Jesus.
Speaker 3: Now keep in mind we saw a similar type of
trek that doctor Khalil took in his debate with sam Shimoon,
where doctor Khalil says something like, oh, well, you think
Gospel is the New Testament of the message of Christ
from the New Testiment the Apostles? No, No, in Ingeel
is this unknown, lost, forgotten thing that the Quran is
restoring or in some way preserving or bringing back. Now
keep that in mind, because this is actually even dumber
than the other answer from God?
Speaker 19: What's the engel?
Speaker 12: In Gel?
Speaker 21: Is a book that was given to Jesus from God.
One more time, in gel is a book that was
given to Jesus from God.
Speaker 19: The Engel is a book that was given to Jesus
from God.
Speaker 3: Now remember this doesn't exist. No one has this except
some Muslims say, oh, there was a group of Christians,
some sect at Medina who had this lost in jeal
of Jesus. Of course, there's no evidence for this. It's
just claims that they make up and things that they assert,
And of course all of the Christians prior to this
are not using that. Now otherword was we have the
New Testament attacks that are being used from the time
of the post Apostolic fathers all the way up through
in Nicea, all the way up to the seventh century.
That's contemporary with these events. So that's the definition that
obviously is not what they're talking about.
Speaker 19: They're going with and this idea is based on five
verse forty six of the Quran, which we'll read in
a few moments. But let's allow our Dawa friends to
finish their point.
Speaker 6: Are you a Christian?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 21: Do you believe Jesus received a book from God a
lah called the Ingael?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 9: We agree with you.
Speaker 3: What you don't believe in the Angel.
Speaker 19: There you have it, folks. Muhammad and the Koran affirm
the angel. But the Angel isn't what Christians have in
the New Testament. Instead, it's a book given to Jesus
from God. And we don't have a book given to
Jesus from God. Hence we don't have the Angel.
Speaker 3: We don't have it.
Speaker 19: Christians have never had a book that was given to
Jesus from God, so we've never had the Angel. Poor Christians,
Dawa fans watch Hamsa's clip and say.
Speaker 3: I'll hangdle it all and they don't even they're not
even realizing how stupid this is, given with what the
other statements in the Quran say about the torajeal, I mean,
it's like, no, you understand what you've already done here.
Speaker 19: Such a powerful response.
Speaker 6: The Christians have been humiliated.
Speaker 19: But there's a problem with Hamsu's claim that Christians don't
have the Angel. Allah and Mohammed say very clearly that
we do have the Angel. Consider a few passages. Sir
A seven one fifty seven of the Qur'an refers to
those who follow the messenger. Muslims believe the Messenger here
is Mohammed. Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet,
whom they find inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel
that is with them. The Gospel here in Arabic is
in Ingeeal. The Koran says that Jews and Christians find
Mohammad inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel that are
with us.
Speaker 3: Now, how is this possible? If this mystical lost text
that was given to Jesus, which is all preposterous, was
no longer accent and no longer had Christians and Jews
don't have it. This is super obvious and super dumb.
Speaker 6: What's the angel? According to our Dawa friends in.
Speaker 21: Jael is a book that was given to Jesus from God.
Speaker 19: So if the angel is a book given to Jesus
from God, and the Koran says that we find Mohammed
inscribed in the Engael, that's with us. The Koran is
claiming that we have a book that was given to
Jesus from God. Right, Hamza and his friend say, we
don't have the Engael. Allah says we do, and Hamsa's
fans will believe him even when he contradicts a law
isn't that amazing. Now we'll take a closer look at
the verse that says the Angel is a book given
to Jesus. But we'll also read the verse that comes
right after it, sir A fiv Verses forty six and
forty seven. And in their footsteps, we sent Jesus, son
of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him,
and we gave him the Gospel, wherein is a guidance
and a light confirming the Torah that had come before him.
As an a guidance and an exhortation to the reverend.
Our Dawa friends insist that this means the Engel is
a book given to Jesus from God.
Speaker 3: But here's the next verse.
Speaker 19: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God
has sent down therein whosoever judges not by that which
God has sent down, it is they who are iniquitous.
Speaker 3: So you see the obvious issue here. Hopefully, if you
have two brain cells that aren't completely destroyed by the
nonsense that's out there, how could we judge what is
with us if we don't have the Angel with us.
You see, in other words, the passage, as we've cited
many times, tells those who are hearing the new message
from Mohammed to judge Muhammad's message by what came before,
and even mentions the fact that the Gospel is in
continuity with the Torah that came before it. So what's
the explanation for this Islam is a copy paste religion
which didn't understand the basic theology that came before in
either Jewish revelation in the Torah or in Christian revelation
in the Gospels and in theology. That's why the Bible
has both the Old Testament and the New Testament in it,
you see. But they don't understand that, and so they
cribbed together this weird religion that is a fundamental contradiction
that tells you to judge on the base of what
came before. And then when you find the obvious contradictions
with the new revelation of Muhammad with what came before,
you're supposed to toss out anything that contradicts the Quran.
But that principle contradicts judging by what came before the
New revelation and the old revelation, that is the Bible.
Deuteronmy thirteen Uterami eighteen Galatians one those passages all tell
the believers to judge any new revelation based on what
came before anyway, So this is a complete reputation of Islam.
We'll go ahead and open it up. Shown. I'm mute, sorry, mat, Yeah,
what's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 22: I listened to a lot of the YouTube stuff that
you have.
Speaker 3: I haven't.
Speaker 22: I haven't signed up for your classes or anything. And
Irvin Jensen Jensen is that right?
Speaker 3: Who is that? I don't know who that is?
Speaker 22: H Logo Logos Media. He has this thought thought wire
thing that's pretty cool. If you've never heard of him,
you really need to check that guy out.
Speaker 6: Urban Jensen.
Speaker 22: I thought people would know. Uh, but I do have
a crit cool question for you, and this is kind
of kind of related. I would really hope that.
Speaker 3: And I know there's a lot of.
Speaker 22: Bullshit going on between this, but I would really hope
that you would have a conversation.
Speaker 6: You don't have to have a debate, but a conversation.
Speaker 22: With Haws from the infrared crew, because he does have
some good things to say.
Speaker 3: No, why would I waste my time with that? That's
completely stupid?
Speaker 10: All right, all right, why do I need?
Speaker 3: What do you what's the other person.
Speaker 22: Irving Jensen, I would assume that you would know him.
Speaker 6: He wrote a book on like mushrooms or something or another.
Speaker 3: Why would I know a person talking about mushrooms.
Speaker 22: Because everything you say actually overlaps with what this guy
is saying.
Speaker 6: He's basically says that possible. Well, he's I would think
you guys would be there.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm just I'm trying real hard not to
be mean man.
Speaker 6: So that's all good. That's all good.
Speaker 3: I'm goodbye. They awful us. Yeah, I'm you.
Speaker 6: Hey, Jay, Hi, do you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I agree to talk to me.
Speaker 12: I just want to say it, like time runs fast.
I believe it was like five years ago. I was
in your discord. Louis hooked me up at you, and
I like, I think I prepared you for like what's
it Rushet's to date, I gave like a lectures on
heat and oh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm sorry, I do remember that. Yeah, it's been
several years.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm fine, still move Yeah, I just want to
continue on where you started with like the Quran, because
what when when when I gave the lectures to you.
Speaker 6: It's funny.
Speaker 12: One of the things I said to you was start
Like Louis wanted me to like make his whole like
higher critical attack on the Quran, but I didn't want
to do it, and I said in my lecture, like,
as Christians, we should always attack the Qur'an from the
presupposition that we just we take it as it is
and for the sake of argument, we accept. Okay, let's
say for the sake of argument that Muhammad.
Speaker 10: Really say this.
Speaker 6: Let's say that every headief is true.
Speaker 12: Let's not go into the whole higher criticism because that
opens up a.
Speaker 6: Can of worms.
Speaker 3: It's I agree, Yeah, then they can say it.
Speaker 12: Back to us. But this is a trap that Muslims
always go into. They love to cite higher criticism against
the Bible to us. And as you know, I'm an
ex Muslim. When I was a Muslim reading higher critical
like critique of the New Testament, well it was like
fifty sixty percent of my you know, preparation for attacking Christianity.
And like, you know how like I believe it was
like what it Sam Chebuno calls ironic, calls part erman
shaikh part erhman because of how Muslim cite.
Speaker 6: And like.
Speaker 12: You have refewed this I believe it was with like
Muslim lamptern, and you do that because you're a philosopher.
You do the very strong philosophical argument is that just
like say, okay, you accept high criticism with our scripture,
but you don't want to accept higher criticism of your scripture.
You don't want to go you don't want to go
into capril, say at Reynolds. But this is an abstract
argument that the average Muslim just doesn't it's just stupid
to understand this. He will just be like, well, our
scripture is true and those false, So we can do that.
That's why it's very important to really go into the
finer points and the PRIs of positions and show just
how it's not only inconsistent, their arguments against the Bible
can actually constitute kuffer like disbelief from a Muslim perspective worldview.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, that's a great point. Could you give give
an example.
Speaker 12: That, yeah, yeah, because like I believe this was Ijos.
I don't want to like die on his help, but
I believe it was Ajos. It was a Muslim apologist
to make this argument from its own mouth that the
Gospels could not have been written by the apostles because
they predict the destruction of the temple. Therefore they must
have been written after year fifty, after the destruction of
the temple.
Speaker 3: Yeah, of course he's not going to apply that to
the Quran.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 12: No, again, this is a atheist naturalist argument that they
just like earlifts from port Erma, and they don't understand.
You're a Muslim, You're supposed to believe in prophecy. You
have to believe in the possibility of prophecy. If you
deny the possibility that make prophecies and you're a caffeine,
you're a disbeliever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. That's a great point.
Speaker 12: And the other augment is that this is I think
more popular. I heard Jake make dis arguments. I heard
so many well on that.
Speaker 3: Point, though, I just want to stress before you go
into this other point that Jake makes, like this is
why it helps to understand the basic principles of logic
and debate, because everybody who knows those things would know
you can't use a double standard, or you can't you know,
change the goalpost and say well, I'm going to use
this principle to critique your position, but you can't use
that for my position and why Well, because my position
is not subject to that critique. Well that's just arbitrary.
Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, exactly. But the thing is in Muslims again,
Muslims don't understand like universal, general abstract argument. You really
have to go in to greatly and show it to
them because they really operate on the level. The other
argument is that, well, the apostle John could not have
written the Gospel of John. And this again, this is
a critical naturalist school.
Speaker 15: Argan, what is the argument?
Speaker 6: You know it? Why did they say that John written?
Speaker 10: Because of John?
Speaker 12: Beside the prophecy?
Speaker 3: I mean there's different ones. Sometimes they argue that because
it's so theologically advanced and had to come from some
late era something like that the divinity of Christ, and
nobody at that time yet believe in the divinity of Christ,
so it must have come from a later era.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Again, it contained sophisticated like philosophical and it's written
in Greek, right, It's written in Greek. And we are
told that the apostles, like John Peter, they were just
like Galilean fisherman. They were illiterates, right, m hm. Well,
as a Muslim, you're supposed to believe in this thing
called divine inspiration.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, good point, right, And the Qur'an.
Speaker 12: Itself says, well, Muhammad's enemies they accuse him of forging
the Qur'an because Muhammad is an illiterate.
Speaker 3: And he could not have come up with all right, right, right,
he's even called and he called the illiterate one, right, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 12: And when it comes to Koran, Muslims use this as
a proof by an.
Speaker 6: Inspiration, like this proof a proof that John.
Speaker 12: When it comes to Christians, it's just taken a naturalist
atheist argument like no, well John was a was an illiterate,
it didn't be great.
Speaker 3: So he could not have written the Gospel exactly.
Speaker 12: And this is like this is a flagrant, very basic
double standard that like again, as a Muslim, when when
I understood this, when when this like inside came to me,
this was probably the point where I, like I became
a Christian, you know.
Speaker 6: What I mean?
Speaker 3: Oh, so you recognize this double standard approach and that
was something that really clicked with you.
Speaker 12: Yeah, it really it blew my mind.
Speaker 17: Huh.
Speaker 3: That's good to know. Yeah, I mean I didn't I
didn't know that that was one of the things that
was really clicking for you. But it's good to know that. Yeah.
Speaker 10: And again, like.
Speaker 12: Every debate, like after I became a Christian author of
Christian I've had every day I debate with Christians, every Muslims,
and every single debate, they cite whatever part Ermans, whatever
dating of the Gospels and what he says like, oh no,
they're not written by apostles, they're written late. And every
time when you go into it, okay, why does he
date them late? Why does he say the apostles could
never written them? When you attack these presuppositions, Muslims just
like break down like oh yeah, yeah, well you're right. Really,
there's no they don't have any response to that.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, Hey, thank you to all. Thus I appreciate those comments,
and you have great points to keep in mind, like
why would we accept this double standard? Uh, in regard
to your position, but we're not allowed to have that, uh,
you know, critique for the Qur'an right you can use
that critique of us. Yeah, okay, did your thumbing down?
I see you. I'm mute. What's up, c RG, I'm you.
Speaker 5: What's going on?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 16: But I just want to say, uh, I love to
have a little religious debate. But the DUDEO was just
up here. I want to say a lot of that
was false. You feel me as far as like Muslims,
that's just that's a that's a bold claim with no
proof that Muslims just fall off and say that You're right.
Speaker 3: No, they do that all that's not false. They do
it all the time. They're talking about not all the time. Right, Yeah,
I've been in hundreds of Muslim debates. What are you
talking about?
Speaker 6: Okay?
Speaker 5: The question is are those Muslims and knowledge?
Speaker 3: Because all the top Muslims except for one.
Speaker 5: Okay, I just take your word for it. That's not
my point.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 16: When I came up, though, I mean before I came up,
when I came into the space, I saw I was
listening to the recorder.
Speaker 5: I guess that was you, right.
Speaker 3: I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 6: The music.
Speaker 5: It was a recording play. It was something playing the music.
It was no, no, no, no, it wasn't the music.
Speaker 3: It was oh the clip I played about? Yeah, yeah, right,
So it was.
Speaker 6: Talking about the inn jail.
Speaker 16: A lot of you know, a lot of Christians, a
lot of people like to talk.
Speaker 6: About the n jail.
Speaker 16: That verse in particular that was being talked about.
Speaker 5: I think that was chapter five. What uh, verse forty seven.
Speaker 16: That verse is talking is telling the people of the
book right to judge the book. That's how they getting
judged by that book from the people of that time.
Was that's the in jail, the gospel that was around
that time.
Speaker 6: They are getting judged by that.
Speaker 5: They're not getting judged by the Qur'an.
Speaker 3: No, it's saying that the people that have prior revelation
can judge the new revelation and see that the new
revelation of the of Muhammad is in continuity with the
old revelation. That's the claim.
Speaker 16: That's not but that's not what Muslim scholar is saying
that that's what that means.
Speaker 3: What does forty eight say a confirmation of the previous
script about that verse though I'm talking about the next
verse five? Forty eight says that it's a confirmation of
the previous scripture.
Speaker 5: That what that verse means, right is.
Speaker 6: My bad.
Speaker 16: I got a phone call back in that time. Muhammad
went to the Jews.
Speaker 3: Are you there? We lost you? If you want to
come back talk, I'm you.
Speaker 6: Can you hear me? Okay?
Speaker 7: So I just heard your debate or a portion of
back and forth with CRG, We've got a question for you.
Speaker 6: In order to get the.
Speaker 7: Deep meaning of a text, not just the surface meaning,
do you need to understand.
Speaker 6: The original language?
Speaker 7: In other words, do you speak or understand Greek, Aramaic,
Hebrew or Arabic.
Speaker 3: Understanding the languages can be a great tool, but it
does not guarantee either the understanding of a quote deeper meaning,
nor does it guarantee that your theology is correct. It's
just a tool in the tool set.
Speaker 6: Okay, So do you believe in that standard?
Speaker 3: What standard.
Speaker 7: We just said where you just said that the language
is a tool that you could understand it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a helpful tool. But plenty of people with
linguistic degrees, as you would admit, have heretical and ridiculous theology.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 7: So, if you use language to communicate your ideas, to
either cancel out a specific theology or call it a
coffee paste from another theology, you ought to know the
source and its source language and a target and it's time.
Speaker 3: No, I don't have to know the original languages to
know that, because the languages can adequately translate the ideas well.
Speaker 6: You just said that you would lose some contact.
Speaker 3: I never said. I didn't say that. I said it's
a tool, that's all I said.
Speaker 6: Okay, all right, so it's a tool. But do you
believe that when you look at that tool and utilize
it to.
Speaker 7: Understand something, will there be a loss of understanding in
any shape or form.
Speaker 3: It's it's a case by case basis with certain texts.
To stop interrupting me, let me finish. No, I didn't
say yes. I said it's more nuanced than the either
or that you're trying to put upon me. It's a both,
and it really depends on the specifics of the situation.
But no, we do not have the belief that you
only truly know the religion if you speak or know Arabic,
for example. And by the way, that would mean that
your position isn't for all people. And it would also
mean that the Koran is false when it says that
all things in the churn are actually clear.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but it is clear, so that's the thing.
Speaker 3: So it's clearer than So why are you got different
schools disagreeing over anthropomorphism if it's all clear?
Speaker 6: Right, But let me just go back to it.
Speaker 3: So you're not going to answer that, right, You're not
going to answer that, Oh I will.
Speaker 6: There's lots of broader context.
Speaker 3: Oh wait, so now you're allowed to have a broader context.
But when you ask me an oversimplified question about languages,
I can't have that.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, you are entitled to whatever you want to
hear the host of this this space. But with all
due respect, I asked you whether a loss of meaning
could result.
Speaker 3: I answered you that it's possible in some cases, but
not substantially such that the entire religion is unknown unless
you know the original languages. We don't believe that.
Speaker 6: Do you have an example where it could be lost?
Speaker 3: There are difficult texts and passages that require linguistic scholars
or textual scholars to try to help to understand those passages,
but they're not all.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think there's passages in the New Testament that are
difficult to understand exactly in the Quran, No, I don't
study or know the Arabic, but I can give you
one example. In many places in the Koran, for example,
it will mention the prophet in the book, and it
doesn't specify what those generic phrases or people are referring
to hints, why you have all the hadith that helped
you explain it.
Speaker 7: Right, So, but in the Qur'an, so in your example,
you didn't bring up the entire sentence, but you said a.
Speaker 6: Specific word, like the prophet or the book mean different things.
Speaker 3: I said, it's generic, that it's not identified, and hence
the hadiths make that clear. So it was very obvious
what I was saying.
Speaker 7: Okay, So going back to that point where a language
potentially in case by case spaces, as you stated, could
result into using that tool, could result into a loss
of understanding in case by case spaces, right, Okay, So
if that's the case, you do you have a complete
example where there would be a loss of understanding.
Speaker 3: Again, any of the passages that are ambiguous about what
prophet is being mentioned or what the book quote unquote
is are by their very nature ambiguous. Thus the hadith
that later tried to explain and clarify those are my example.
Speaker 4: No, I understand.
Speaker 6: I think that's a valid point when you say that
these clarified.
Speaker 7: But do you know as as yourself, a complete sentence
from Quran that's ambiguous.
Speaker 3: Well, we have revealed to you a prophet, the book
with the this book with the truth, a confirmation of
previous scriptures, previous scriptures, and this book is this this
book meaning the Torah, the Engeal, or the Quran are
the previous scriptures? What are these previous scriptures? So it
is ambiguous, and so hence other places in the hadith,
for example, try to clarify.
Speaker 7: So in your opinion that in that's in that specific
example that you provided, there is a loss of understanding
because it's ambiguous.
Speaker 3: Well, and the usage of for example, prophet many times
throughout the Quran is ambiguous as well.
Speaker 7: When it talks about the word profit isa or Jesus,
that's ambiguous.
Speaker 3: I'm not talking about those I'm talking about the statements
that just mentioned the prophet, the prophet. The prophet does
the Koran tell you in all those cases who the
prophet is right?
Speaker 6: Right? So when it uses the word in English.
Speaker 3: What's your point?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 3: This is yapping on and on and on and what
do you have an argument or point?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 7: The point is this, because I think you've just proven
it when you use the when you use a word
called t he the and then use the word profit,
it is your interpretation from a source language of Arabic
into English.
Speaker 6: When you when you qualify something with the with the
what does that tell you?
Speaker 14: Well?
Speaker 6: There can be a loss of this is there's a
loss of me.
Speaker 3: I have no idea what you're trying to argue. If
you're gonna you're not gonna make a point, what's I
don't I don't get.
Speaker 6: I think I think the point is here. If you
want to debate on Islam, you ought to. You ought
to know the source. That's that's my point.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, so do you know the sources of Christianity?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 3: I don't so well, so you so once again Islamic
double standards. You can come here and debate your religion,
but you but you can talk about Islam, but I
shouldn't talk about Islam because I don't know the source material,
even though you don't hold up the source material on
the same standard.
Speaker 6: Jay, do you know the source language?
Speaker 3: So again, so this is all hypocrisy and double standards,
things that you're not going to reply to. No, you're
not going to apply it to yourself. So my arguments
stand on their own, whether or not I'm an Arabic
scholar or not. And so in other words, listen, shut up,
by your standard. I don't have to listen to you
because you don't know Greek, Hebrew and Arame. So you
just canceled out yourself by your own double standard. And
thank you for vindicating the fact. Thank you for vindicating
that you guys use double standards, which was the point
five minutes ago. Here we go, here we go, here
we go. So exactly, I already said that I don't
have the position that you have to know the original
languages to know the religion. That's something that you have
invented as a standard, because you don't have an actual
argument ilios. And by the way, I can point if
I don't know languages, the next best thing one can
do is point two scholars, and I can point to
multiple scholars that points out ambiguities in the Qur'an. So
this is just going to turn into a infinite regress
of citing so called scholars. Hey, Jamie, could you bring
me a water?
Speaker 6: Thank you?
Speaker 3: Go ahead, I'm mute, Yeah, I.
Speaker 23: Hello, j Thank you for allowing me to speak. I
used to be Muslim, actually memorize.
Speaker 6: The entire Quran or the Bran.
Speaker 23: And one of the things that the point I want
to make regarding why I left Islam in addition to
many other things, is the the foundational contradictions basically, which
is that God a lot a lot basically gave us
free will and this life is a test, you know,
and you know that test basically decides whether we go
to heaven or we go to help forever. But at
the same time there's another verse and yeah, but.
Speaker 3: Also all uh basically predestines and determines every single event
because most of them are occasionalists, which means that Allah
is the direct cause of every single event.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 23: Yeah, so it's it's like, yeah, so one of those
foundational like contradictions like that never made any.
Speaker 10: Sense to me, you know.
Speaker 14: And the other thing is is like, you know, going
to help forever just because you don't believe in Muhammad
or you know.
Speaker 6: Some of these teachings.
Speaker 23: You know, I get like going to hell forever for
killing millions or whatnot, but you know, going to help
forever because you don't believe in Mohammad.
Speaker 12: You know.
Speaker 10: That's another thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just wanted to make that point.
Speaker 3: But yeah, think, yeah, yeah, I'm glad, I think it is.
I think you're right. Like eventually it's kind of clear
that there's some pretty fundamental contradictions in this position, this religion,
and that's why we tend to focus on those. I mean,
they do the same thing.
Speaker 17: They're like Trinity trendity would make no sense. Salty m hm,
how you doing?
Speaker 15: What are you?
Speaker 24: I'm trying to follow what exactly the subject is you're
trying to debate?
Speaker 3: Well, it's any of the topics listed under debates, So Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Atheism, libertarianism, uh, Mormonism,
those witnesses, you name it.
Speaker 24: Okay, it's my personal view that I think Catholicism, uh
should be the one Christianity.
Speaker 10: Just based off the history.
Speaker 12: And that.
Speaker 3: Hold on what does that mean? Just based off the history?
Speaker 24: So you know, based off of what Jesus said that
you know, he shall build his church on the rock
and that you know, that's really what Catholicism was actually
built on, was the grave of you know, Peter.
Speaker 6: The rock.
Speaker 3: So it's built on the grave of Peter. Yeah, do
you have any do you have any church? Do you
have any church fathers or New Testament biblical proof or
evidence that the rock of the church in Rome is
built on Peter's grave.
Speaker 24: Well, I mean, Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon, but.
Speaker 3: He changed Abraham's name too, so what.
Speaker 10: Well, I mean it just kind of.
Speaker 24: Uh, I feel like the chain of custody, you know
what I mean, would be that.
Speaker 3: So, but what I'm saying is, why is it Rome?
Since there's three patrine scenes sees Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria,
why is Rome the one that's special?
Speaker 24: Because like that's I mean, Jesus actually conquered the Roman Empire.
Speaker 3: Jesus conquered the Roman Empire, so the Roman Catholic Church. Okay, yeah,
that's a really good argument. Jesus conquered the Roman Empire,
and so the Roman Catholic Church, because it's the word Roman,
is the one true church. Yeah, stellar argument there, Tony.
What's up man? I guess the good news is that
if that's where the Roman Catholics are at these days,
then we're doing good. By the way, we got seven
hundred and thirty if you would hit like and share,
we only got two hundred thirty five likes, Tony. I'm mute, Tony, Tony,
it feels good.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 14: So I was just curious. I'm a Catholic, so I'm
pretty well, I'm decently.
Speaker 6: Educated Catholic.
Speaker 14: In other words, most Catholics don't really know their faith.
Speaker 6: Well, I was just wondering, what faith do you practice?
Speaker 3: Orthodox?
Speaker 10: You're Orthodox Christian Catholic.
Speaker 6: All right, we're like Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 14: Okay, I give you, you know, kudos for that, because
right now, your your dogma and teachings are are much
a little bit more correct than the Roman Catholic.
Speaker 3: Right, how is that possible? Given Vatican Ones claims, Well.
Speaker 14: The you know, because we've had some problems in the
in the Vatican and uh over the years, especially the
last fifty or sixty years.
Speaker 3: Well, but I mean, how does that how does that
Vatican One?
Speaker 14: Yeah? Well, you know, I would I yeah, yeah, you know,
well I don't want to, you know, because I'm a
little different than a lot of other Catholics. And I'm
pretty serious. I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm a Carmelite.
Speaker 3: So so how are you different? What do you mean?
Speaker 7: Meaning?
Speaker 6: You know, I I do believe that there was some error.
Speaker 14: Because man is man, and there are some things that
that get twisted in belief system and and it's and
and probably started at Vatican One. So a lot of
Catholics will agree with that. In other words, with that statement,
I just made that there were some errors and translations
of things and teachings from Vatican One, but overall the
Catholic faith is pretty much intact.
Speaker 3: Do you believe with Vatican one that everything that is
proposed by divine and Catholic faith are to be believed,
whether contained in the Word of God, scripture, tradition, or
ex cathedral solmn judgment or ordinary universal magisterium, are infallible?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 14: Yeah, yeah, see you're well you really grabbed me, you know,
because that's where I do have some questions about the
infallibility on who judges that as infallible?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean Vatican one says the purpose. Yeah, it
says the purpose. Who does it? So we know what
the Roman Church teaches?
Speaker 14: Yeah, so so yeah, I do have some difficulties with
that because I do see lots of how we went
from near in other.
Speaker 3: Words, from Okay, well, but I mean I'm not trying
to me mean to you, but I mean, if you
have difficulties with an ecumenical council approved by the Roman Sea,
you're no longer Roman Catholic Because Roman Catholicism says that
to adopt one heresy or to reject an ecumenical council
or dogmatic teaching no longer makes you Roman Catholic.
Speaker 14: Well yeah, yeah, I could say right now, I am
not going to Mass. I don't like Vatican two Mass.
I don't believe it's a valid Mass.
Speaker 3: Oh so you're a traditional Catholic, you would call me more.
Speaker 6: My beliefs are in the traditional Catholic beliefs.
Speaker 3: Yes, but every track Cat I've ever met or non
believes Vatican One is infallible.
Speaker 14: So you're a why I said when I said there
is an infallibility to it, it's just I have some questions.
Speaker 3: About Oh so it's infallible except for the places where
it makes mistakes.
Speaker 14: Well, yeah, I think some problems can I couldn't.
Speaker 3: Actually that would have been, that would be I mean
that it's not infallible.
Speaker 14: So well, nothing's infallible, and man, that's my point.
Speaker 3: Well, but I mean the claim of the Roman Catholic
Church is that the Roman see is infallible in a
man in Rome.
Speaker 14: So that's not true if they follow the procedure exactly correctly, which.
Speaker 6: Is what they do.
Speaker 3: But it actually no, actually it does not say only
when they quote follow a procedure, it actually says that
also His Ordinary Universal Magistrate is guided by the patrin
Charism too, So it's not just the ex Cathedra statements.
It's also extended to the Universal Ordinary Teaching Office.
Speaker 6: But Orthodox.
Speaker 14: Is along the same lines and in beliefs as Vatican ones.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to but no, there's nothing
in Orthodox Christianity that's in line with Vatican One. So
I'm not trying to be rude, but just know what
at all in Orthodox Christianity at all lines up with
Vatican One. I mean, Martin Luther, here we go. Oh
my gosh, bongo five dollars, Jay big fan. My question
is how much choice do we have and what we believe?
I think a good amount. I mean, we might be
predisposed to something because we were raised with it when
maybe we fell under the spell of a cult leader
or something when we were young and we didn't have
the full faculty of a free choice and reason functioning.
But I think that as we get older and more mature,
I think we have a good amount of choice in
what we believe. I know that we laugh at Matt
Dilon monkey saying, quote, I'm not convinced, but how much
choice do we have and what we find convincing? Do
external factors play a role? Yeah?
Speaker 10: They do.
Speaker 3: I just think that the problem when we critique Matt
Dolo Monkey for saying I'm not convinced, it's not because
you can't express that as a kind of an existential
dilemma or crisis. It's just that you can't use that
as an argument. It's not an argument. It's a psychological report,
and in debates, psychological reports of absolutely no value. They're irrelevant.
Vain five dollars. Here is a new Matt Dolla Monkey
song I whipped up. I'll have to go into the
stream labs, the back door of the stream labs to
get the link. I can't get links from the desktop.
Vain two dollars. It's a down potato syndrome, just being
Canadian exactly, mim kg five dollars. The iron here is
that this kid, what's his name, Colby cold Cuts, Colby
Potato cold Cuts. He's a taate fan. How is he
sensitive to tone policing? Well, all those people are just
tone policers when anybody challenges them. But he's going to
act like he's some tough dude for front and he
front Yon Vander shoot five dollars. How many boogers are
in the uncreated nose of a lot? That's a good question.
If you got an uncreated shin and an uncreative foot
into uncreated right hands, do you got to uncreated nose?
Steve mclove and two dollars? Why didn't all I give
Jesus a printing press for the Injeel that came down
as a book? Exactly? That that right there, by the way,
tells you that Islam like didn't understand what was the message.
Like they misunderstood the message of the Gospels and Jesus's
Gospel and the Gospels meaning the books, and they thought
that the Injeel was a book. I mean, it's that
right there tells you that this is a low, subtard
level misunderstanding that they wrote into their religion. Mkg five dollars.
By the way, I've been wondering about the origin of
the Islamic dilemma? Who introduced it? Do you think your
background in philosophy and orthodoxy bolt it. I think that
I understood it pretty quickly when I first encountered it.
But I'm sure there have been apologetic people who've been
talking about it for a long time. I'm sure Shamoon
and David Wood and all these people were talking about
lay before, way before I knew about it. I don't
know who was the first person to use that argument
would be. It's probably been around for a long time.
I mean, you don't have to read very far into
the Quran. You know two and then chapter five, saw
twos or five, right, and you're already encountering what it
says about the prior revelation. So it's not like it took,
you know, a whole thousand years of research to understand
that they made these really stupid claims. Harry Sarpanos ten
dollars White and Muslims evangelized when Muhammad told Jews that
they should follow Torah and Gentiles that they have their
Bible as well. It's not it's an inconsistent position. Obviously,
Muhammad was clear the Quran was written in Arabic and
only intended for the Arabs. Yeah, this is the point
that also David Wood makes that originally this was supposed
to be the religion for the Arab peoples, but then
later on, as you get these phases of Mohammad's career
in his life. Then it turns into a no, actually,
we got to conquer all these people. Cody s five dollars.
The Bible is a Vatican one is infallible except where
it makes the mistakes. Where have we heard that before?
Oh Islam? This is actually a good point. What we
hear from Roman Catholics is the same coping type of
mechanism that you see manifesting with the Muslims. Exactly, very perceptive.
Joho Shafat Julian five dollars. Can you refute Native American culture?
I'm Native. I mean I would do a critique of
the religious beliefs. I don't know about critiquing the culture,
but if I was to create a critique Native American theology,
it would be a critique of, you know whatever. There
are various theological principles. I'm not very well studied on
all the various Native American religious traditions, so I mean,
I know they confess like a creator, you know, the
great Spirit or whatever. I think there's like their version
of the Ten Commandments. They have like ten basic principles
of the Creator Spirit or something. But I think that
it also has polytheistic elements, so that's probably where I
would begin the critique. David Koshaba seven dollars, New Zealand. Hey, Jamie,
could you bring me a gender tube?
Speaker 6: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, Martin? Did you want to go ahead?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 25: I was wanting to know what you thought about John Calvin,
John Knox, and Martin Luther's work as far as salvation
because in Jude talks about the faith that wants to delivered.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll referenced that passes many times to refute cults.
Speaker 26: Roman Catholicism, I think is the cradle of Christianity unless
you've been like I have exposed to Baptist Lark Mark
Mark Landmarkism, which is it traces Christianity through Peter Lombard.
Speaker 4: Are you familiar with that argument?
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm familiar with the claims of the Trail
of Blood. I have a copy over there. But why
would I think the true Christianity is maintained through a
bunch of anti trinitarian, heretical, crazy groups. Don't you think
that's kind of silly?
Speaker 4: I was just asking, so, what denomination do you personally affiliate.
Speaker 3: With Orthodox Eastern Orthodox Christianity?
Speaker 4: So are you familiar with Brother Nathaniel unfortunately? So what's
your take on his views?
Speaker 3: He's a quack?
Speaker 6: Can you extrapolate on.
Speaker 3: This quack equal mentally? Ill?
Speaker 4: Okay, what's your understanding of ken Ham.
Speaker 6: And the Arc down in Kentucky and advocating the earth is.
Speaker 4: Eight thousand years old?
Speaker 3: I think that there's some good arguments for young Earth.
I tend to favor that view myself. I've never been
to the Arc. I think would be cool to go see,
but I'm not a huge fan of ken Ham.
Speaker 4: You're a huge fan of Canaham.
Speaker 3: Not a huge fan of Kenham because I would say
he has goofy theology.
Speaker 4: Answers in Genesis.
Speaker 27: The reason I got started in being a Christian I
was introduced to the old schoolfield Bible, the original schoolfield,
and it promoted the gap theory.
Speaker 4: And recently I came across they said.
Speaker 27: Of Pleplo Bible school Notes from nine nine Universal Notes,
and they allowed.
Speaker 4: For millions of years for the Earth. So I laid
that as a fact, I asked this question.
Speaker 27: I've run into people who were dogmatically committed.
Speaker 4: To answers and Genesis, and they considered anyone who is
Old Earth to be a heretic, that's my takeaway. And
now this fellowship, are you fami with that.
Speaker 3: I'm not Protestants, so I've not been in the Protestant
world since two thousand and two, so I don't know
anything about these groups or what you're talking about. I
was at one time a reader of the Schofield Bible
when I was a teenager, but I soon learned that
that was a psyop that was funded by the essentially
the Jewish power structure in England to promote the idea
of the restoration of the Nation State of Israel. The
balf Declaration all that to Americans, and thus all the
idiot American evangelicals were duped into supporting a Secularish empire
project known as the Nation State of Israel, which has
nothing to do with the biblical nation State of Israel.
Speaker 6: So I concur with you, and I am I would
like to.
Speaker 27: Validate what you said through the readings or whatever resources
you can give me, because I am not a Zionist
and I personally have ethical problems with the total ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinians. And I heard Richard Lamb this
is a personal story. Richard Lamb was the head of
the Executive Committee for Ethics of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I heard him speak at Trace Creek Baptist churchill Kentucky,
and he called for the annihilation of every man, woman
and child in Gaza because the Jews had total and
absolute right to that lane.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're judaizing heretics and there morons, so exactly. I
appreciate your call, but no, I do not like the
theology of either Martin Luther or John Calvin. I have
multiple lengthy critiques of both of those people, mark In,
but thank you for your comments.
Speaker 6: You can you hear me? Is this stream like a
met alone to ast questions or is it only disagreements?
Speaker 3: It's pretty open, So what's on your mind?
Speaker 6: I have two questions.
Speaker 15: The first one is about philosophy, the others about theology.
The first one you can correct me if I'm wrong,
But I believe about like two or three months ago,
you want to stream, and you were talking about how
the law of identity states that like two things cannot
subsist together or something like that, and you were saying
that the Lord Jesus is above that law, which is
why you can have two natures.
Speaker 6: Do you remember something.
Speaker 3: I don't remember the specific live stream, but I mean
I think that if you use the classical definitions of
some of these things in the Aristotelian sense, they don't
fit into the Christian paradigm when we try to apply
them to God. God transcends those categories because those are
categories for the created order, so they're not going to
be perfectly applicable to the Creator.
Speaker 6: Okay, So my question was like, if someone else to
how do you know.
Speaker 15: That this law of logic doesn't apply to God and
the others do with the answer to me, well, that's like,
what's divinely ritual to us?
Speaker 3: Well, it's not just that, it's that the theological revelation
tells us the limitations of the created order and logic
applying to God. So, in other words, revelation itself tells
us that, for example, God is transcendent, so there's no
finite created category that's going to perfectly box him in
or define him or encapsulate him. That that's part of
apathetic theology and why we say, for example, the essence
of God is unknowable. That doesn't mean that God is
holy or totally unknowable. Because as Besil says, his energies
come down to us. So we have these rays r
ay that extend from God down to us, these energies
which reveal aspects of God, but never totally and never exhaustively.
So logic is something that reflects the mind of God,
but it doesn't define God and it doesn't exhaust God.
So you can't say, for example, the law of identity,
which is a reflection of God's mind. You couldn't say,
for example, God's mind is the law of identity.
Speaker 6: You see, Okay, thank you for that. And then I's tha.
A question I had about is Luke II, verse.
Speaker 10: Fifty two, where it talks about how the.
Speaker 15: Lord Jesus grew in wisdom. And I've heard two different
interpretations about this verse. Some people interpret it like, oh,
that's that's like the human brain of the or Jesus
not grew in wisdom, but then the defined mind always
knew everything, which I might be wrong, but it sounds a.
Speaker 6: Bit Astorian to me.
Speaker 15: And then the second interpretition I heard is from Saint
Cyril of Alexandria, and the way that he interpreted it is.
Speaker 6: To say that it's not that the Lord Jesus actually
grew in wisdom. It's that it seemed like he grew
in wisdom from our perspective.
Speaker 15: Just like when the Bible says that he became a curse,
it's not that he was a real curse. It's just
it's as if he was a curse. Which interpreation do
you think would fit better?
Speaker 3: I think both can be understood in an orthodox way.
I understand what Saint Cyril is saying there, But I
also don't think it's necessarily an historian to say that
the human mind would have undergone increase. So, for example,
just like his human body, right, his human body underwent change.
It went from being a baby to being a mature adult.
So there's nothing wrong with the idea that the human
mind increased in knowledge and in wisdom. So I don't
see that necessarily as a problem. It could also be
like the wisdom there, it could be a communicating of
the grace to the humanity by the divinity. So there
could be a greater participation, you could say. But Caserra
himself says, for example, that after the resurrection, Jesus is
in a certain sense fully deified, not that he wasn't
deified prior to it, but that he willed to undergo
the blameless passions before the resurrection, but after the resurrection
his flesh is fully and totally deified. So there is
some kind of progress, and there is some kind of
communication that's happening between the divinity, the divine person, communicating
the divine energies to the human nature that he possesses.
Speaker 5: To grow it.
Speaker 3: I guess you could say, I don't think that's necessarily heretical.
Speaker 15: I just I just maybe it's because I'm orient or Orthodox,
and I'm still looking into Orthodoxy because in my opinion,
the true churches has to be one.
Speaker 6: Of those two. I'm just on a journey to see,
like which one it is.
Speaker 12: But I don't know.
Speaker 15: I guess the reason that sounds serious to me is
like to say that, oh, he knows this in his divine.
Speaker 6: Mind, but not in his human mind. The way that
I look at it is the person, you know, the
Lord Jesus. He either knows it or not.
Speaker 12: I don't know.
Speaker 6: Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 3: In thinking about Well, that's why I think when you
get to the dispute between Cyril and Ument, not serial,
the dispute between Saint Maximus and Peirus, this question comes
into play because the idea is that it's not that
a change in the human mind necessitates that he is
no longer omniscient. That's why we affirm that both things
are true of him, that he has a divine mind
and a human mind, and we don't make mind a
property of person, it's a property of nature. So this
is where n hypostatize comes into play, that although mind
and will are faculties of nature, they exist in the
mode of the person that has them. So only by
confusing hypostasis versus nature I think would you think that
that would be the conclusion from what you said?
Speaker 6: Okay, I'll go back and re listen to that, just
to make sure.
Speaker 3: What how did you phrase it? What was you said that?
It would sound a Nestorian to say how did you
phrase it? Again?
Speaker 15: Just to me personally, it sounds a bit of Nestorian
to say, like, the human mind doesn't know this, but
the divine mind does know it. It just to me,
it's like giving personal properties to things that are not persons.
The way to argue is like the person the Lord Jesus,
he either knows it or he doesn't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but see, that's exactly my point is that mind
and will are not hypostatic properties. There are properties of
nature that exist in the mode of the person's you see,
that's where there's a different there's a distinction between will
qua will. Well, all I mean by that is that
something can be the property of a nature, but it
only exists in the mode of the persons that have
the nature. So that's why they're there. This is the
difference between the nature and the mode of the nature.
And I think that perhaps Orientals confuse those two things.
They they think that we're saying that there's two minds,
so there's therefore there's two persons because persons that minds
are therefore properties of persons. But we're saying, no, minds
are not properties of persons, the properties of nature that
persons have. So for us, distinction between nature and person
is the root there.
Speaker 15: Okay, Now, the reason why I might be a bit
confused this because I've only been relievous for like a
little over a year because of launching Censor Moon.
Speaker 6: And you do you have time for one more quession
or yeah?
Speaker 3: And by the way, I would say on this point,
read the John mcguckan book on Cyril of Alexander and
the Chrystal controversy, and read the Maximus debate with Peerists.
It's called Disputation with Pearis. It's really short, it's only
like ninety pages.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 15: I talked to you before and you recommended thinks cherol
in the uh Alexandria and the the Christ Controversiological.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I bought it. I haven't read yet because I'm
still reading the Orthodox Study Lebel.
Speaker 15: I read it once, but I'm rereading it because I
really want to get to know about good and then
go into like I cimitical councils and the Saints later.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, you're always welcome. I'm I enjoy You're a very
civil Oriental person to dialogue with, so I appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 15: I'm I might not be so civil in a couple
of years when I get more information.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's fine. I mean I'm not I'm not opposed
to uh, you know, having these debates. Did you you've
seen we're on my channel. We're doing an oriental series.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, both of them.
Speaker 15: You guys have made some some good point, good points
that I like have maybe you know, think and come
up with questions regarding the Christology. But at this point
I don't know so much about it because I haven't
gone into like the church's, you know. But when I
get there, all the ask you a little bit more questions.
All lost what I had was about. In Proverbs ninety seven,
it says that it's wrong to like rebuke a wicked man,
like a person who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.
And then in Job thirty one twenty nine, when Saint
Job is trying to tell God like he's trying to
think of what sins he's committed, he says, have I
rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me? These
verses really confuse me because I don't understand, like, is
it like is this thing that it's a bad thing
to rebuke someone who's wicked, or to.
Speaker 6: Like betraying right.
Speaker 3: So, for example, the way that the New King James
translates Proverbs ninety seven says, he who corrects a scoffer
gets shame for himself, and he rejects a rebukes a
wicked man only harms himself. So a lot of times
in the Proverbs they do a doubling. It's a coupling
that they do so in other words, scoffer is the same.
The two sentences or phrases are identical, So the scoffer
is the same thing as the wicked man. So in
other words, what's meant by wicked man is a scaffer.
It's like when Jesus says, don't throw your pearls before swine,
meaning that we have the common sense, hopefully and the
wisdom to identify when, for example, it's a waste of
time to engage with a certain person. Right, So let's
if some guys like, I don't know, just unhinged and
like cussing you out, and like you're not going to
be able to reason with him, right, So trying to
rebuke somebody who's unhinged would be a waste of time
and you're only going to bring harm to yourself. So
I think that's what's meant in Proverbs ninety seven. It's
like pearls before swine and then the rejoicing at the
death of the wicked. I think that there's a way
that we can understand it in that it is a
manifestation of divine justice if we get victory over the
wicked or if a wicked because there's proverbs for example,
to say, when a wickedman dies, the city rejoices. Right
when a wicked ruler passes away or is defeated, the
city rejoices. And yet at the same time, we shouldn't
take a unhealthy you know, like pleasure in someone dying.
And so in some sense both things can be true.
That we can mourn for the fact that a person
made in the image of God died, but also we
can be happy that God's justice was manifested in that
a wicked person is no longer able to exert wickedness.
Speaker 15: Yeah, yeah, okay, that makes a lot of sense, and
I will probably jump back going on like a month
or two.
Speaker 3: Those are good questions, man, what You're welcome. You're welcome anytime.
Bible Guy's dude, Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 11: Okay, So I have two questions. One of them is
kind of related to the JQ.
Speaker 10: I don't know if we want to get into that
or not.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm on YouTube, so we got to be kind
of we're gonna we're gonna abide by the YouTube guidelines.
Speaker 10: Okay, I think I might.
Speaker 3: Be able to Does this relate to the topics or
you're telling geopolitics? We're not doing geopolitics tonight.
Speaker 10: Oh that's fine.
Speaker 6: Then I have another one that.
Speaker 11: Is, so I know that Okay, so you used to
be Reformed and that he became Catholic and now Io.
Speaker 10: So I'm just curious, do you no longer believe in
like the.
Speaker 11: Reformed doctrines like federal headship and like.
Speaker 10: The Covenant of Works Covenant of grace.
Speaker 3: So there is a sense in which individual men represent
their families, and that is a biblical concept. I don't
believe the Covenant of Works is a biblical concept. No,
that doesn't exist. And in fact, it would be either
an historian or it would be a position of created
grace to say that Jesus merited the status that he had.
He didn't have to merit the status he had because
he was the son of God and a divine person
from all eternity, and so as soon as he was incarnate,
he deified the human nature that he had. There was
no fulfilling of this degree of like merits that he
had to you know, pay off God the Father. That's
also anti trinitarian to say that there's a payment between
one divine person and another, and it's actually part and
parcel of the Calvinist and Lutheran in a classical Reformation
doctrine that the son was damned on the cross, which
is anti Trinitarian.
Speaker 11: Okay, and then what Okay, I'm kind of confused about
it because I've been like reformed for a while and
I'm starting to see some problems with their views of
this stuff. So I'm just curious, what is the Eastern
And I've watched some of your videos, so I know.
Speaker 10: A little bit.
Speaker 11: But do you guys believe infants receive like the effect
of original sin or also the guilt.
Speaker 3: I was not believe in inherited guilt, and in fact,
no one in the world believes in inherited guilt except
for Calvinists and maybe Lutheran's, so that's no other religion.
Rom mcalleys don't even believe in it.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's crazy. I can't it around it. It's like
it's pulling me and I don't know. I'm just trying to.
Speaker 3: Figure this out.
Speaker 10: But I've noticed, like.
Speaker 11: Like even the Baptists are quoting like some Eastern Orthodox
Church fathers because there's some Baptists that don't believe in
inherited guilt too.
Speaker 3: So well, I mean the the scriptures make it very
clear that you're not guilty for the sins of your
father's right. Ezekiel says that, so how do we reconcile
that with the passages that people think teach inherit to guilt,
like Romans five. Well, if you look at, for example,
Mayandorff's critique of Augustine's take on Romans five, Augustine was
the first person to think that Romans five taught inherited
guilt because Augustine thought that we are all in Adam
as in an archetype, and so because we were quote
in Adam as in an archetype, when Adam sinned, we
are also therefore guilty of adam sinn. But that's not
actually what past the passage in Romans five says. It
actually says that because Adam sinned, all will sin. It
does not say they all sin in him. It's is
because we are in him, we will sin. In other words,
we will eventually get to a point in our lives
where we commit an actual sin. That's why James says
that you're not guilty until you consent to the desire.
James says, the desire when it's consented to, when it
gives birth, it gives birth to sin. But if James
was teaching what inherited guilt teachers say, James would say
the desire itself is the sin. But he doesn't say that.
Speaker 10: Okay, yeah, sure, And I know you had a video.
Speaker 11: I've been watching it a few times about like Calvinism
and original sin.
Speaker 10: So I'll just kind of try to keep going through that.
Speaker 3: I've got a multiple if you go to my clips channel,
Jay Dyer Livestreams and Absurdities, I've got two multi hour
lectures about Calvinism and Tulip. I've got a whole lecture
on cotails channel about Calvinism and Tulip. I've got multiple
lectures on my I mean, I've got out the wazoo
on this. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Yeah, And I guess last question, and I'll ask, is
is there a church father that like specifically talks about
how we can receive like the effects of Adam's sin, but.
Speaker 10: Not the guilt.
Speaker 11: You know, where they really specifically talk about not inheriting
as guilt.
Speaker 3: I would say any church father that talks about it
before Augustine or any church father in the East, none
of them teach inherited guilt. Augustine is the first to
do that.
Speaker 10: Okay, all right, well cool, well, thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: So I would just look up like in Against Heresies
right where perhaps when he executes Romans five, you could
look up Chris system on Romans five. I mean, there's
a whole passage from Saint Photius where he's critiquing the
Augustinian position that infants have inherited guilt. Just look up
Photius Augustine, Romans five and you should get the Orthodox
Ethos website that has an article on that. Marco, Hey, jay,
but thank you so much for taking my call.
Speaker 6: I have a quod question. Is there kind of a
reason why?
Speaker 10: Like there's one sort of verse in the Corona.
Speaker 5: It's very kind of.
Speaker 28: Damning, and it basically says something along the lines of
make God kill me if I'm not like a true
prophet or whatever like slice the a order. And then
there's also like hydiez I talk about Mohammad when he dies,
like have of the feeling about I think is a
ord being ripped.
Speaker 4: Out or something like that?
Speaker 10: Is there kind of a reason why that's not brought
up into bates more?
Speaker 3: I've forgot mentioned a couple of times. What what what
do you think is important about that to bring.
Speaker 28: Up well, because it basically inside the Qurana basically was
that this is a falsification of Mohamad's prophethood if it
were to happen, and then later in the Hidisas thatth
that it actually happens. So it basically it's almost the
kna be predicting Mahomet's falsification.
Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe I should be brought up more.
Speaker 28: I just it's just kind of a thing that I
was thinking right too. And then another thing too that's
kind of funny is I don't know what your thoughts
are a star too. But I think I noticed is
that whenever they critique the writing of the Gospels as
being later, it seems to me extremely unjustified to the
fact that if you look when most are written, they're
written like over.
Speaker 6: Two hundred years later after Muhammad.
Speaker 28: So how can they critique the Gospels for being written
like sixty seven years later.
Speaker 14: When the Haydees explaining what Muhammad hads.
Speaker 28: Or what he says or supporting the Kuran, we're written
over two hundred years later.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, Yeah, that's a great point.
Speaker 28: And so if you don't mind me asking, I just
asking picking your brain.
Speaker 6: So one thing is this is slightly more on the
debate's side.
Speaker 28: You said you would be like kind of more on
the young Earth creation side. So I assume it probably
would come from more like a philosophical thing, because how.
Speaker 6: Would you respond to the claim.
Speaker 28: But like, for example, we can see things that are
over eight thousand light years.
Speaker 3: Away, Well, it's assuming that that traveled. Uh you know
that it wasn't that the light, that the universe wasn't
created with the light already quote being here.
Speaker 6: Okay, gotcha.
Speaker 28: And like what about when it comes to things like
carbon dating, So it's like I could carbon date things
that are, for example, older than eight thousand years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, there's also a lot of critiques of carbon
dating being unreliable, and on top of that, in my understanding,
carbon dating also assumes the thing in question that for example,
it takes these millions of years for this radioactive decay
to happen. So that would be my critique.
Speaker 28: So that fills love with soilich from my surety, those
love with a particular.
Speaker 6: Basically be the justification of circular.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's assuming the lengthy time that would be the
thing in question from my vantage point, Okay.
Speaker 28: Thank you, and if you don't, might have one another
question as well. So when it comes to like, what's
you ever debate somebody like Fuin Shapiro or Charlie Kirk
kind of more regards to when it comes.
Speaker 3: Like faith, Yeah, I in fact I have multiple times
asked Ben Shapiro to debate, and one of the one
of the tweets got I don't know a thousand likes
and I don't remember how many shares.
Speaker 28: So yeah, because when when Rogan did the thing with
Wes if I watched her last year, we went over that,
I was actually one of the firstes to comment, and
I was like, they can have.
Speaker 6: Because he does a really good.
Speaker 28: Because I think West is obviously like you know, he's
like apologist is kind of the wrong I guess what
do you call it?
Speaker 10: It's like the wrong area expertise.
Speaker 6: Sure, yeah, yeah, focus as you say.
Speaker 28: So, I think it's kind of cool because I think,
like I actually a couple of months ago, I was like,
because I'm a Roman Castlic and I was trained to Orthodoxy,
your stuff has definitely been very appealing and.
Speaker 12: Stuff like that.
Speaker 28: And so when you mentioned the things from body, and
one and two started looking at that and I was like, okay,
so I started going to somewhere to bind lurgies and
it's it's been very that's good.
Speaker 6: Many.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that. And thanks for mentioning my name and
the do you mentioned on comments or something?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 28: Yeah, I mean I just commented a pumpish of tags.
But but now I just imagine one to say basically,
thank you for your service.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I would love to, you know, go on there
and do you have a you know, some kind of
a representation, you know, at the level of a rogan
that's not you know, Baptist type stuff like what I
think I think west Up's a Baptist nail? What's up?
You want to unmute? Nael? Do you want to unmute?
I guess we lost him. Confused, by the way, if
you want to hop on the stream, if you liked
the scream the stream, if you like to debate, hit
the request to speak and I'll bring you up. Confused.
Speaker 29: Hey, Jay, So I wanted to ask have you looked
at the channel harmony?
Speaker 6: Are you familiar with that channel?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 29: He's an orthodox YouTuber, but he does like the story
kind of. He tells stories of different saints and then
he tells stories of different theologies. Do you know so
I want to make a YouTube channel like his? Do
you have any resources like books? Because I know you
have a video about specific books to read, but do
you have any like, let's say, beautiful stories. Books are
about beautiful stories that you know of that you can
share so I can so I can like read.
Speaker 6: Them and then make make a video about it.
Speaker 3: I mean, like lives that when you say beautiful stories,
what do you mean like lives the Saints or what
are you talking about?
Speaker 6: Yeah? Yeah, it could be Lives of the Saints. The
YouTube the YouTube channel harmony. He has done one about like.
Speaker 4: The Youth of the Apocalypse.
Speaker 3: Let me see what other ones Youth of the Apocalypse
or Truth of the Apocalypse.
Speaker 6: The Truth of the Apocalypse. He did one about Saint Pasius.
Speaker 10: He did one.
Speaker 3: What is a truth Apocalypse?
Speaker 12: Is it?
Speaker 3: Is that a story?
Speaker 12: It's a it's a book?
Speaker 6: Okay, I think it's a book.
Speaker 4: And then she like adapted it to a video.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, I've got it pulled up. I'm not familiar
with this, but I'm looking at it.
Speaker 29: His videos are beautiful if you want to listen to
them or watch them, but I don't know.
Speaker 4: I can come back later on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it looks like it looks like he
puts a lot of time into it looks really well done. Unfortunately,
I don't have any good recommendations on like stories or
something like that. Okay, all, yeah, I appreciate it. It
does sound like an appropriate type of way to reach people, though,
I think, you know, the way we talk about stuff
and do stuff, you know, it appeals to a certain
kind of demographic and niche and it's not for everybody,
and that's fine that not everybody has to be interested
in philosophy and argumentation and this kind of stuff. It's it's,
you know, it's for a certain special type of low boy,
fast boy. David Know, we did that one, Koshaba from
New Zealand, thank you so much. I think I missed
somebody else's super chat. Hold on, I forgot to read
this one. Harry Sarpano's ten dollars Why are Muslims evangelized? No,
we did that one. Excuse me, we did that one, Cody, No,
we did that. Here we go, sincere hypocrite. Five dollars
if Allah's word is incorruptible, and the Torah and the
ngail are Allah's word. Then aren't the torreh and the
jail not corrupt?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 3: And one of the hadiths, of course, that Shamun has
pointed out and his old articles actually backs up that
very view exactly. Eric Zee five bucks was Jesus meaning
to create a way to connect to God without church.
Some chick in the chat as talking smack no, because
he set up a church, right, Matthew is sixteen eighteen,
Matthew eighteen Right, The church is the kingdom that he's
setting up. The apostles are the princes of the new Jerusalem,
Jojo five dollars. The Quran becomes the criterion over the prior. Well,
that's what they do in their mistake or in their
apologetic But then the Quran itself says that the prior
should judge the Koran on the prior. Isn't Allah affirming
a circle?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, This is what I said in the debate with
Daniel Haikikitch. You seems like the reconciliation is through a circle,
and that isn't one. It is a circle because the
Quran is supposed to be confirmed by what came before,
but what came before contradicts it, and so you throw
out what's in what came before by the what the
Kuran says. So it's like it's very simple. It's like,
what does Joseph Smith do? I have the New revelation
and it's it's consistent with the Chris revelation that came before.
Well wait a minute, Joseph, the Christian revelation that came
before is not consistent with your new Book of Mormon,
and blah blah blah. Oh, that's because it's corrupted. How
do I know where it's corrupted everywhere that it doesn't
agree with the Book of Mormon. I mean, this is
not that hard JV Three two dollars. Don't forget the
varying creation timelines you told me in the Book of Mormon.
I mean the in the Quran. Stephen Pagan, Stephen Pagan
five bucks. Is there a Macedonian Orthodox Church? There is
one near me, and I'm learning leaning Orthodox. Are they
seen as legitimate?
Speaker 4: I think so.
Speaker 3: I don't think they're in any skil