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