Speaker 1: It is so insane. Bunker buncer Oo unco loncer.
Speaker 2: I got married. I got married to funco Fo. We
got wedded, conjoined in the subway.
Speaker 3: Shop o w.
Speaker 4: I am married.
Speaker 2: I'm married to ale, But.
Speaker 5: Do we get joined? Go white?
Speaker 2: As soon as somewhere.
Speaker 6: Spitamins and biscuits and minerals they come to eve to
my whole life is spent to h.
Speaker 7: M hmm, what.
Speaker 5: Of I'm married to a longo.
Speaker 2: But we got wedding, We got joined in the subway,
shut over the road.
Speaker 5: And minerals they come to to visiments and minerals. Then
come from me this year to.
Speaker 8: Fuck for.
Speaker 7: Fuck.
Speaker 2: I got married. I got married to my funk go
b who we got waded, We got joined in the subway.
Speaker 9: He sha.
Speaker 6: S sight What should I do with one of the
first sight? Put it in my head, throw a knock
the ground?
Speaker 4: Who knows?
Speaker 10: Just what would I do? A?
Speaker 7: Ready?
Speaker 3: Are you joined in the ways?
Speaker 11: Love the human guinea pig stuff in Africa, it's so
in See the human guinea pig stuff in Africa, it's so.
Speaker 12: In seem, so instant, so insan, it's so insane.
Speaker 4: Gee, you find up in that tree what you're doing
up there?
Speaker 5: Why you scared?
Speaker 7: Why you run it from them red bad? You ran
mom man trew and from.
Speaker 9: Me man till the monkey like their email monkeys.
Speaker 13: With double nantas between the trees hanging.
Speaker 4: Down upside down.
Speaker 3: That's a smile.
Speaker 7: Side telling monkey, what.
Speaker 3: You doing to me?
Speaker 14: Till until a monkey, till the.
Speaker 7: Macky, then till the MODI.
Speaker 6: What's it do it to me till the tiller?
Speaker 7: Mom mody.
Speaker 1: Doll mo.
Speaker 3: Fucking filling. I'm thinking about Tom Koon, Tom Coon, Tom.
Speaker 8: Tom Coo, Tom Coon, seeing you all that screen, Tom Coon.
Speaker 6: What you do to me?
Speaker 5: Risky babe business.
Speaker 6: This is a risky business talking about you, Tom Kon,
But the risk is the key to the business.
Speaker 5: Tom Coom.
Speaker 6: This We've got a lot of inside jokes on this channel.
Don't hold it against me. I don't really have a
thing for Tom com It's just jokes, son. People don't
understand the inside jokes.
Speaker 5: I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 6: From now on, I'm gonna start every show with me
muted and then me making a mistake on purpose so
that you can call me out in the chat.
Speaker 5: Oh you dude, You know you People.
Speaker 6: Aren't live streamers for a life style for a for
a job. You don't understand what I go through. You
don't understand what it's like. You don't understand how hard
it is my life. Yeah, I'm trying to have a
breakdown on screen, to create drama, to create a buzz.
Speaker 13: Streamer has Doer has meltdoubt on streamline.
Speaker 5: His career is over.
Speaker 13: Yes, soy boys celebrating all over the web. Soy boys
are creating meme coins to celebrate dires melt, epic melt.
Speaker 5: You don't know what it's like. Time come to.
Speaker 6: Risky Beariness. Actually, I hit that pretty good. I hit
the notes pretty good right there. Welcome everybody. Jay's meme
coin was a rug pull shocker.
Speaker 5: We knew it.
Speaker 6: We knew it all along. He's worse than hawk to Ah.
If I was an Indian, that would be my name.
You named Huktua Risky Beess. Welcome everybody. We're gonna have
open for him. I didn't realize where is this Billy
Carson debate. I'm having a hard time finding it. Everybody's
talking about it, and uh, but I can't find it.
Where's the actual debate?
Speaker 5: Now? The funny part is this is great. This guy.
Speaker 6: I don't know who Wes Huff is. I've never heard
of this guy until today, but he beat Billy Corson
so bad, which we've been making fun of Billy Corson
for a while.
Speaker 5: Because this dude is why do Wow do why? And
obviously it come on. This guy's a character. But this
dude beat him so bad that apparently.
Speaker 6: Billy Corson, who is a descendant of the gods, is
suing this bro right here, This Protestant pastor man, let's
see what he says.
Speaker 4: Is attempting to sue me.
Speaker 15: For those of you who don't know, I was invited
to interact with Billy on a podcast that he grew
to come on, was not his podcast, where he was
notified beforehand who I was and what we'd be talking about.
After that debate took place, Billy attempted to suppress the
footage that didn't really work. I've released clips from that conversation,
while Billy does not want you to see those clips
and has sent me a season to sist letter. I
was really hoping that this could be an opportunity for
Billy to learn to see the major errors that he's
been repeating and turn this into a learning experience. I
even offered to follow up with Billy in order to
show him how and where he could find accurate and
credible resources in order to make sure what he was
saying was verifiably correct going forward in the future, so
he and his audience could learn and proceed knowledgeably. Billy
did not agree. But unfortunately for Billy, agreeing to a debate,
losing that debate and feeling embarrassed about that loss does
not constitute legitimate grounds to litigate Billy.
Speaker 6: Now, this is just funny because this is what happens
to extremely arrogant, deluded people, is that they're so confident
in their overconfidence and not in their actual skill set
or knowledge that when they get humiliated, they experience a
kind of a break, kind of a meltdown. And everybody
on the Internet knows that a sus shady Internet type
of person is the very person who immediately goes to
trying to have a lawsuit when they lose a bait.
Thank you, hot espressos ready to order, Thank you babe.
And it turns out, yes, as Piggydoo says in the chat,
Wes has demonstrated with absolute logical certitude that Billy is
in fact not a king. In fact, in Billy's case,
it is accurate to say we actually was kings past tense,
but no more, we is not kings. And sometimes it
do be like that. But I gotta see the actual debate.
So they're saying it's on some other podcast, but I
don't want to watch some other goofball like this guy
reacting to the debate. So maybe he's got a list,
if he's got a link to the debate. I guess
I should have found this beforehand. I assumed it would
just be on YouTube.
Speaker 5: So let's see.
Speaker 6: Here we go, full debate right here, unavailable? What the
heck did this goober? Did the person who hosted debate
actually pull it down?
Speaker 5: Oh my gosh because of this goofball's lawsuit threats. This
is so stupid.
Speaker 6: So I guess we got to watch this guy's reaction
to the thing. The pharisees, like, does anybody have an
hour actual clip? Like maybe somebody in the chat.
Speaker 5: Tell me what maybe we should just do.
Speaker 6: Let's just do Ruseland's highlight because that's probably that's probably
the yeah, the highlight of it.
Speaker 14: Hilly Carson does not want you to say now we're.
Speaker 6: Gonna talk about this debate, and we're gonna talk about,
of course, the Ubi Petris Eric Obara, much anticipated, long
awaited debate years in the making, years in the mix.
We're gonna have some criticisms, We're gonna have some appreciations,
We're gonna look at weaknesses strong points in terms of
the highlights of.
Speaker 5: That as well.
Speaker 6: I don't that one was really long and it was
very hyper precise, so I don't think we'll have time
to get to like all of it, So we're gonna
hit the highlights of that. We'll probably do the opening
statements and then the clips that I clipped and that
Luigi clipped from the Obara UBI debate, and then we'll
open it up to people who want to ask questions
or who would like to actually debate. And that's for
anybody out there. If you want to challenge me, if
you want to set uh, make your case, make your argument,
if you gotta, If you got a billy course an
argument you want to make, go for it. Do you
think he was a kyang you got proof, bring it.
If you wanna bring your Roman Catholic arguments where you
think UBI lost, if that is in fact what you
really think. It will be open for him. In fact,
if you're a Muslim, if you are atheist, we will
have those uh open up later. I don't know why
this is automatic because I did two gaming streams. This
has automatically situated.
Speaker 5: Me in the field of gaming. And this is not gaming.
Speaker 6: We're gonna call this comedy. Today's show is going to
be a mix of debate and comedy. Baby welcome everybody
if you would it like and share. So let's get
to the highlight of the Billy Carson wes Huff debate
and uh man, what how much blow drawing does wes
Huff do to get.
Speaker 5: His hair to do?
Speaker 6: That is west Huff is going to singularly bring back
moose and gel. There's no way a white dude's hair
can do that without blow drying and using moose and
using gel together.
Speaker 5: That that's.
Speaker 6: Like, I don't know, something's going on. Something's going on.
And we got three interesting hairstyles from this these We
got the Ruse line kind of millennial uh you know,
garden patch up top. We got the Billy Courson with
the classic eighties black dude with the black dude mustache
goate going. And we got wes Hoff's nineties moose Jel
thing going on all at once. So we've got three
interesting hair Dude, I gotta get a haircut because I
want to keep mine, you know, with my van dam
aesthetic vibe going. And so it's growing out, and so
I'm getting back into Vanilla Ice preacher haircut, which I
don't like anymore. I'm not a Vanilla Ice preacher. Although
I will preach the virtues of Vanilla Ice, I'm not
a Vanilla Ice preacher, if you understand.
Speaker 5: Jamie says she likes it.
Speaker 6: Well, I feel like a fake TV preacher with a
stupid haircut because they always have that big you know,
pomp adore. It's like Elvis and TV scam preachers of
the people with this haircut. I gotta grow out that
fake Leon hair where it hangs down like nineteen like
like two thousand and three, Keith Urban, where it's.
Speaker 5: Like hanging down in my face.
Speaker 7: Leon.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So somebody found the full video. I think we're
gonna go with the highlights though, because I mean, I
don't know how long this video is. But let's check
out the highlights from Ruslan.
Speaker 16: Here he this debate Billy Carson is trying to bury
this debate, and he's running in some roadblocks and his
legal action being threatened and taken.
Speaker 14: And this is where we're at. So go ahead, play this.
Speaker 10: According to the Sinai Bible, Jesus wasn't crucified in that Bible.
Speaker 15: Do you might have to ask a clarifying question when
you say this is this is?
Speaker 14: So these are the types of claims he makes according
to the Seinni Bible.
Speaker 6: Now, to be clear, we've been busting on Billy Carson,
or should I say Billy Corson for a long time, so, uh,
this is nothing new to our sphere. And I will
remind you that when as soon as we saw this
dude a year ago, months ago, whenever it was, uh,
we was cracking up. So here's another channel up there
that's got the debate if you want to watch the
full debate. But I just have to remind everybody that,
I mean, we've been laughing about this nonsense. Let's see,
let me go back to here.
Speaker 5: No, that's Diddy.
Speaker 6: I'm getting Diddy and Billy Corson mixed up right here. Okay,
And we made well, there was another video even before
this one. In fact, I thought Billy Carson was so
funny that I actually brought this was a second video.
This is not the original Billy corson right.
Speaker 8: With his.
Speaker 5: Right here.
Speaker 6: People, So you never debate with Jewish guys, Well, this
episode right here has the.
Speaker 5: Debate with a Jewish guy. What are you talking about?
Jewish guys never.
Speaker 6: Typically come to debate anyway, So go watch this old
one right here where we was laughing about this stuff
months ago. Anyway, let's get back to Ruslan, because I mean,
it's just really, what's the word I'm looking for? Like,
you have to be totally not self aware to think
in our internet day that you're not gonna look like
a complete goof us if you try to sue somebody
right after your debate that you lost. The whole internet
knows and can see what you're, what you're up to,
and what happened. It's obvious to everyone. So it's amazing
to me that he would even do this move.
Speaker 5: It's so silly.
Speaker 6: It's like, didn't Brendan should. I don't have anything personally
against I've never I don't know Brendan Schaalb, never talked
to him. I will say that I appreciate Sam Tripoli
shouting me out on his podcast. But I think it's
pretty obvious that Brendan Schauld made this mistake move when
he got made fun of or I don't remember what
was happening, they said he wasn't funny or whatever, and
then he was like threatening to sue people.
Speaker 5: I mean, this is just like.
Speaker 6: Basic bitch mistake move one oh one. So it's just
really odd to me that. But I think if you're
if you're a totally delusional sort of I don't know
if Billy Corson really believes what he talks about or
if he's.
Speaker 5: Just saying made up stuff. I mean, I don't know
what his motives are.
Speaker 6: But if you are totally controlled by your delusional pride
and you've created your own cult, I think you're just
kind of a slave to the passions and you just
can't even like control yourself. I guess that's what's happening,
because this is just such.
Speaker 5: A stupid move.
Speaker 14: This was in crucified. Of course, he just wasn't crucified.
Then he wasn't. He couldn't have been resurrected.
Speaker 16: These are the such The issue with these games is
there easily easily debunkable.
Speaker 10: According to the Sinai Bible, Jesus wasn't crucified in that Bible.
Speaker 15: Do you want to ask a clarifying question when you
say the Sinai Bible, I'm what are you referring to?
Specifically refer to the Sinai Bible. Would you be referring
to Codex sinatics?
Speaker 5: This is my first thought, is what the heck is
he talking about?
Speaker 6: A lot of times, believe it or not, these kind
of wacky goofball guys can throw you for a loop
in a debate. And we've had so many debates over
here with open forums that I can I can literally
be thrown for a loop with with some kind of
wacky goofball guy because it's so out of left field
and I have no idea what he's talking about. Hey, bro,
that Sinai Bible said that that wouldn't know Jesus though,
what are you talking about? Codex sinoticus, codex vaticant?
Speaker 5: What are you even talking about?
Speaker 15: The Sinai Bible?
Speaker 6: All right, well, I remember one time, a few years ago,
there was a there was a Celtic Egyptian study Bible.
Somebody just made up. I mean, there was a real
study Bible that you could buy. But it was just
obviously like just a bunch of made up nonsense. Right,
you can buy like the feminist Skittles gender neutral Bible, Right,
So I like that doesn't really mean anything that you
talk about the you know, the the Sinai Bible.
Speaker 5: I could go get.
Speaker 6: I'll bust out my Celtic Egyptian Study Bible. By the way,
let's see if that still exists, because I'm gonna have
to I'm gonna start. I'm gonna get me one to
start quoting it Celtic or it's the Egyptian Celtic Study Bible.
Speaker 5: I'm not joking. This was a real thing. And if
I recall, it was going.
Speaker 6: Around the idiot conspiracy sphere many maybe ten years ago.
Speaker 5: What do you know here it is you can still get.
Speaker 6: Here's the people that made it up. Okay, I'll trust
these people for sure. Yikes, she looks like him with
a wig. I think that's just a that's just a
photoshop of the copy paste of the same person. The
Colburn Bible is a combination of Egyptian Celtic writings that
compare to the Christian Bible with it, so it's like
a idiotic, you know, like scam thing. Obviously, all right,
let's get back to Billy Corson.
Speaker 15: Yes, like the codex that comes Okay, That's why I
was trying to get some clarifications because I actually have
I have a facsimile, so I have a photocopy of
Codex Sanaticus that I work with in my office.
Speaker 14: Okay, first of all, slight flex.
Speaker 17: I mean, the whole thing is a flex. He's like,
what specifically are you referring to or you're referring to
connecticuts Sinacus.
Speaker 16: Snack Codexanaticus, and then he pulls out and he pulls
it out. He pulls out a photocopy version of the
entire thing.
Speaker 15: That's great, sure, And the only reason I asked for
clarification is because Sanaticus in particular is just a fourth
century Greek manuscript. It's text of the Gospels reads almost
identical to the modern Greek text that we develop translations from.
Speaker 16: When you say that and a lot of translations are
cre from this quoteccentaticates early is kind of cool.
Speaker 6: I mean, this shouldn't even really be up for debate.
This is like such a basic mistake move that, I mean,
this guy really embarrassed himself at this point. So, I mean,
I understand we have to do debates with these kind
of goofballs because they trick a lot of people. And
if I recall, Billy Carson is mainly popular on TikTok,
I think, I mean, he might be popular on Instagram
too or something like that. But I mean, and guys,
we have experienced the eighth circle of Hell, that is TikTok,
Dante's inferno, that is TikTok. You guys have seen those
live streams where we go in and invade TikTok and
we debate.
Speaker 5: The TikTokers is rough.
Speaker 6: It's rough, So it doesn't surprise me at all that
that's where Billy Carson is the most popular. But I mean,
this is already like it's already looking a rough.
Speaker 16: Compilation of the Greek manuscripts, right, because all these were
different letters and scroll So it's.
Speaker 17: Just it's just the compilation of the earliest Greek manuscripts
put in kind of a book form, I believe, gotcha.
Speaker 16: Yeah, And so because before they were just letters and scroll.
So someone finally compiled the copies of the copies of
the copies of the copies right, because there's multiple manuscripts
going out being sent out, and then I finally copy
you do sexual Christis by going back.
Speaker 5: There's those one thing.
Speaker 16: There's not much difference, and they compiled it all into
the Codex Sinaticus.
Speaker 15: Gotcha, okay, denies the crucifixion. Of that the crucifixion isn't there.
I mean, I can go on right now Codex Sinaticus,
and I can look up Matthew twenty seven where it
has Jesus being crucified, and that's in Codex Sinaticus, or
John nineteen or any of the other ones. So my
confusion is that it doesn't read any differently.
Speaker 14: First of all, West is so patient and so loving.
Speaker 10: Yeah, He's like, can I have a clarifying question.
Speaker 14: I'm so confused by what you're saying. I can't be
this guy.
Speaker 16: This is why I tend not to like debates unless
they're in person, because I can't be this charitable over
the end.
Speaker 6: Well, Rouslan has invited me in studios, so we'll find
out if he's that charitable in person. I believe that
he probably will be, but I think they're also going
to realize that I'm not actually mean in person or online.
Speaker 5: It's jokes.
Speaker 6: Son, I'm a clown, but I'm a serious clown.
Speaker 14: This is a this is a skill that.
Speaker 16: Gavin Ortlund has, I say, Trent Horn has, Wes has
I'm a crash.
Speaker 6: So in Rousselan's mind, the only way to be a
good debater is to never use rhetoric, Never make jokes,
never make anyone mad, Always talk with an NPR voice.
Speaker 5: Look, there's nothing wrong with that. That's fine.
Speaker 6: But at the same time, there was a time and
a place for the jokes, the jabs, the rhetoric, getting
heat of getting aggressive. For example, in the Ubi Ebarra debate,
that was very calm and peaceful, and I felt like
for the first half, for what I've seen, Ubi was
a little less aggressive than I would have been, especially
with the bar and then towards the end the second
half he got more and more aggressive and eventually just
sort of called out some of the bull crap from
a barrow, which when I had my debate with a
bar that's of course what Ubi referenced.
Speaker 5: In his debate.
Speaker 6: Because a lot of people don't know like the backstories
and the going back and forth and on and on
on with people, and one thing that I think a
lot of people are starting to pick up on.
Speaker 5: I think this happened a lot with Lofton.
Speaker 6: You know, when we were originally interacting with Lofton back
in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, everybody kind of just assumed that, well,
I just hopped on there and was mean to Eric
Obaris with that, and then I just was mean to
loft But then people start realizing that no, actually what
they were doing was doing these sort of underhanded trying
to get me deplatformed from other channels and other discussions,
trying to get you know, other orthodox clergy defract doing.
They're doing all this nasty stuff in the background, which
was not at all the public you know, gentle face
that they were presenting to the audience. So I think
people have to realize that a lot of what you
see people presenting themselves as on the Internet is a persona.
Speaker 5: It's it's fake.
Speaker 6: And especially I'm not knocking Rouselan, but in this domain
of evangelicalism, this syrup evangelical stuff like this is what
they thrive on. They thrive on that performative appearance of
piety and that performative appearance of brother.
Speaker 5: I just love you so much that I want to.
Speaker 10: Act.
Speaker 6: I want to do a Shakespearean theater performance of how
much I love you and how humble I am. Look
into my eyes, Internet, don't you see how much I
love you? If I weep on camera for you, will
you believe that I'm truly a humble.
Speaker 4: Servant of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Speaker 5: Look into my eyes, friends, I am praying for you right.
Speaker 6: Now, right, I mean, this is the kind of just
fakery that ironically even atheistsy through this stuff.
Speaker 5: Right, It's like, atheist, what I want you all to
tithe to me because I love you and I pray
for you.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: Paul Washer is like the essence of this nonsense, and
all of these evangelicals fall for this Paul Washer bull crap.
Speaker 5: Look, that's not me, man.
Speaker 6: I've seen that stuff for so many years being growing
up evangelical. When I see that stuff, it makes me
want to make fun of you.
Speaker 5: That's what I see.
Speaker 6: Because after a while, as you grow up, as you
get older, especially if you're a man, this stuff comes
off as super fake, effeminate skittles. It's just annoying and
it's not authentic. It doesn't come it comes off as performative.
But I think a lot of young people naive people.
This fool's naive people. So no, I mean, I just
don't this whole sphere of these people that like have
their circles and their clicks, that you know, Lofton really
wanted to be in those circles and whatnot. It's just
a lot of it's not authentic and a lot of
y'all fall for it because you think that the public
face that people have is really them and it's not.
Speaker 5: And that's why in the situation.
Speaker 6: With a Barra and Lofton, I came on that stream
because Lebarro was basically bull crapping, like he was just
making up nonsense.
Speaker 5: Jay won't debate me, I'll bust you many thumps to debate.
Speaker 6: And I was watching that live stream live and I'm like, Eric,
I've sent you I don't know how many messages on
Facebook asking you to debate on other platforms. And what
Eric meant was I won't debate him on Lofton's platform. Well,
I don't consider that neutral because we could have debated
on a Protestant platform or anybody else's channel. But Eric
meant that I had to debate on Lofton's channel, and
that was back when he had his show with Lofton
or whatever. It's just like, what you guys don't see
is the background stuff of so many of the people
in this domain, this religious YouTube online sphere, Like they're
so effeminate and they act like just it's like the
most passive, aggressive, soyman stuff. And I've ranted about this
so long. I'm not gonna rant about it again. But
just don't believe all that. Look what you get with
me is what you see. I am mean whatever that means, meaning.
I like to make jokes, and I'll make a fat
joke about a borrow and I don't feel bad about it.
But then they use this as say, oh, look at
his Oh he's not pious or charitable.
Speaker 5: Well, what is charity equated to being nice? I don't understand.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: And by the way, I just listed myself as a
community anyway. I don't claim to be a feeloge. I'm
a philogient like Doc Turkalvin Ortland. I mean, doesn't everybody
kind of sense A lot of these people seem kind
of skittles?
Speaker 8: Man?
Speaker 6: Don't you think a lot of these people may not
be straight?
Speaker 14: If you say some crazy crash over the internet, in person,
it's different. Yeah, over the internet, you're gonna be like Billy.
Speaker 6: It doesn't say that's not actually the case, though, because
I've done several in person debates. When I debated David Gordon,
who by the way, is bigger than me and probably
would whip my ass, I mean I didn't hold back
on him or the Boomer Baptist pastor in that three
way debate. Y'all remember that debate, right, I didn't hold
back on any of them, and I was just as heated,
just as normal in person as over the internet.
Speaker 10: Where I was referencing, actually I was misquote. I misquoted
there it's the Gospel of Barnabas.
Speaker 14: So you'd you completely change the claim it.
Speaker 6: So now what he's referring to some sudipigrapha, some Gnostic text.
I mean, I think Billy was trying to save face
there it was.
Speaker 14: The Gospel of Barnabas. So he just completely changed the claim.
Speaker 18: And what.
Speaker 10: That doesn't exist in the Sinai Bible, the Sinai Bible,
the Sinai Bible. But then you go to the Sinai Bible,
the sin So.
Speaker 6: Here's twenty quotes of the Sinai Bible. This guy, literally,
I mean, how imagine how many people fell for this
nonsense now TikTok. I do believe the numbers are greatly
inflated on TikTok. I don't believe that everybody has five
million likes on their nonsense posts. But there's still a
lot of idiots on TikTok. And again it's the lowest
quality and tier of the commenters and debaters. So I'm
not surprised that Billy Corson had a zillion TikTok followers.
But notice how many people do you think he duped
with his preposterous Sinai Bible claim?
Speaker 5: What the Sinai Bible? What are you talking about? He
didn't even know what he was talking about.
Speaker 6: He probably just read this, or he probably saw this
is some kind of Zeitgeist level stuff. He probably saw
Zeitgeist and thought, I can craft this into a new
story of whatever his you know, we was King's theology
was Bible.
Speaker 10: According to the Sinai Bible, Jesus wasn't crucified in that Bible.
Speaker 14: She was miss or misqu This is a claim he's
made everywhere.
Speaker 10: I misquoted there, it's the Gospel of Barnabas. Jesus wasn't
crucified in that Bible.
Speaker 15: I've actually worked with. There are two manuscripts at the
Gospel of Barnabas.
Speaker 17: Okay, so what I actually reincarnated? But my past life
wrote the Gospel of Bars And.
Speaker 16: I hate to say it, but if you're not closing
more clients on the phone or zoom for your online
programs or services, the problem isn't actually so.
Speaker 14: So one he knows this outlandish claim of the sin Bible.
That's not in the Sinai Bible.
Speaker 16: Right, It's not in there. That's been so then he
goes to the Gospel of Barnabash. Now that sounds oh,
Barnabas well, Barnabas was an accent. He moved around with
Paul and.
Speaker 14: Yeah, that sounds legitimate. That sounds legitimate.
Speaker 16: Well pull it back and look and look at Billy
uh completely to the horror of this entire situation.
Speaker 9: What what what? What? What?
Speaker 10: He really got?
Speaker 14: Cut?
Speaker 10: Bro it wass there, it's the Gospel of Barnabash.
Speaker 16: First of all, prostability for at least misquote, for acknowledging
that he misquoted, prohaps stamped in that Bible.
Speaker 15: I've actually worked with. There are two manuscripts at the
Gospel of Barnabas which we only have two copies of.
One is in Italian and one.
Speaker 6: Now I understand the performative optics of this touting of
how patient and peaceful and loving supposedly people are being
in these debates like this, But I mean, anybody with
any discernment could have already seen and should have already
known as we mentioned months and maybe even a year
ago about Billy Carson. This is like conman level stuff.
So I mean, this idea that, oh, well, we got
to just be nice to everybody, including all the conman,
like you.
Speaker 5: Don't have to worry. Where's the rules?
Speaker 6: You're supposed to be nice to a con man who's
literally blaspheming every day.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's just crazy, this these ridiculous.
Speaker 6: Standards, and I don't know, it's just it's like the
UBI debate, though I think that the debate, as we'll
talk about her in a moment, the UBI debate was
so hyper precise that ninety percent of the debate went
over the heads of ninety percent of the audience, So
that's the that's the difficulty there. So in that situation,
when you got a bunch of you know, nine percent
of the people have no idea what's being debated, they're
going to judge the debate on the basis of the
body language, and so you know, you have, for example,
Ubi's as far as I'm aware of, first video television appearance,
so he was probably a little bit nervous for being
on camera for the first time ever. Perhaps, and maybe
that woul affec to his body language, but it has
nothing to do with the content of what he was arguing.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I just I don't know.
Speaker 6: Debates are a funny thing, and the more hyper precise
they are, the more difficult it.
Speaker 5: Is, I think, to convey to the audience who isn't
isn't winning.
Speaker 6: But in this situation, it's different because probably Billy Carson
has never actually interacted with an actual scholar, and I
don't know much about Wes Huff, but he appears to
be a textual scholar, I'm guessing. So yeah, I mean, like,
how did you think this debate was gonna go? This
is this is pretty amusing.
Speaker 15: Really, this is Spanish.
Speaker 14: First first problem, what's the first problem. Those weren't there
in Italian.
Speaker 16: In Spanish fans are very the original Italian Spanish fan.
Speaker 5: That's crazy.
Speaker 6: I mean, this is the level of stupid where we're at,
where like it's very far removed from quoint A, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin,
and he's talking about Spanish and Italian. I mean, Billy
Carson has doesn't have a basic knowledge of basic history,
but he's able to doop a lot of people with
these weird conspiracy claims. And this is one of the
problems of the whole conspiracy community. There's so much idiocy
in this domain that it's really sad. I mean, I
cover these topics a lot, but I've been in the
world of conspiracy and alt media for a long time
and I can assure you that it's full of idiots,
it's full of disinformation, it's full of con men and
just ridiculous Billy Carson type nonsense. And by the way,
Billy Carson is reminded, he's like a black version of
Acaria S. Remember Acaria S. She was saying Billy corson
type stuff fifteen years ago, and she was on YouTube
and she was you know, there would be she was
like zeitgeists levels. In fact, I think Zeitgeist might even
cite Akaria s right. So what's funny is that the
stuff that he's repeating isn't new. It's just tweaked to
his personal I don't know we was Caying's model or
whatever his position is, but it's just repeated, like Zeitgei
Sakaria stuff from fifteen years ago.
Speaker 4: That's crazy.
Speaker 15: Go ahead, It's like me, this is Spaghetty hisl of
Barnabas or the Acts of Barnabas, which are two apocryphal
documents from the second century. But the Gospel of Barnabas
in particular, we know it's a forgery. In chapter ninety two,
it says that Jesus spent forty days on Mount Sinai,
and then he came to the Jordan River and he
walked to Jerusalem. But Mount Sinai is more than a
week's journey away from Jerusalem. It chose no actual indication
of coming from or even having knowledge of first century
Jewish understanding.
Speaker 6: Burnout.
Speaker 14: We all experience it at some point.
Speaker 17: It's so important to me that I've actually been working
on it in therapy, in.
Speaker 14: Fact, with the help of better help.
Speaker 6: YouTube thinks I need therapy. They keep sending me this
this therapy ad. So thank you algorithmic deity who has
psychoanalyzed me to realize that what I need. I wonder
why I need therapy? According to the AI over lords. Yeah,
so again, this is probably the essence of the debate.
Uh You've got Billy relying on, first of all, a
made up Bible of Sinai, and then you've got him.
Speaker 5: Switching over to.
Speaker 6: Gospel of Barnabas, which my first does he mean the
Epistle of Barnabas?
Speaker 5: I mean, what is he talking about? And uh no,
but I don't. I don't.
Speaker 6: I've never heard of anyone accepting the Gospel of Barnabas
unless this is one of these like gnostic texts. I mean,
obviously it's a super graphical tech, but I've never done
one who believes in it, except perhaps, uh, you know,
people who believe in the Gospel of Thomas or the
Gospel of g Duds, all these sort of pseudo texts.
This is why you need, by the way, the tradition
of the church. Now I'm not faulting wes Huff for
making textual arguments, and you know, showing from internal evidence
that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery, because obviously
I'm sure it is, And the fact that Billy Carson
says what's written in Spanish and Italian again just demonstrates
as idiotcy since that's hundreds of years removed from the
first four or five centuries of the Church and the
translations that the ancient church had.
Speaker 5: At the same time.
Speaker 6: It's like, okay, Wes, but like you, you also are
missing a key component that Billy also doesn't have. And
if you don't have the tradition and testimony of the Church,
then what happens is by default in the Protestant world,
you're really just left up to random Protestant scholars. How
do you know which Protestant scholars to follow about the
canon because it ranges from conservative to higher criticism, and
it's all over the place. So the point though I'm
making here is about what we call normative authority. Did
the apostles have authority to make judgments? Did Jesus set
up a body of people that have what we call
normative authority that could make judgments about these kinds of things,
or did Jesus just leave it up to everybody to
fin for themselves and to try to figure out what
the canon is and.
Speaker 5: What the right list of books is.
Speaker 6: And I guess we all got to go get PhDs
and be west huff to know the canon of scripture. Now,
doesn't that seem kind of absurd? Doesn't it seem like
we wouldn't And by the way, wouldn't we have to
reinvent the wheel every generation to every new generation. Can't
trust that the previous generation got it right because only
the Apostles were infallible.
Speaker 5: They're all dead.
Speaker 6: So why didn't Jesus leave a normative, competent authority within
his church? And I'm not so about the papacy, because
we're going to see in a minute that didn't end
up being a norm a competent, coherent thing for the
for the Roman Catholics either when we look at the
Bara Ubi debate.
Speaker 5: But I'm just.
Speaker 6: Pointing out that while obviously there's no doubt that Wes
is making a fool out of this goofus, I'd really
like to hear Wes's Protestant arguments for why we're supposed
to follow Rabbinic Jews in terms of the Canada Scripture
and not the apostles.
Speaker 14: Okay, so it's not better or gets better.
Speaker 16: This this is, this is light.
Speaker 17: It's not cooperated by any of the other writings.
Speaker 6: Obviously, reddited dude is getting on my nerves.
Speaker 5: So we're going to fast forward to the debate.
Speaker 15: Which is written in thirteen fourteen.
Speaker 14: You don't have any.
Speaker 17: So he's just saying, this is like a this is
like a Christian fan fiction of Datanzeferno.
Speaker 5: Is this was that Rousselan's real laugh? So is that
a real laugh? Like whose laugh was more.
Speaker 15: Of a.
Speaker 6: Uh, a charity laugh, like when Sam Triplet or Rouslan's
laugh there, that was a forced laugh I've ever heard one.
Speaker 16: He presents it as well, you know, Oh my bad.
It was the Gospel of Barnabas. Gospel Gospel Barnabas is
written in the first century. Not maybe he was in
directingly implying, but this is a thousand, two hundred years later.
Speaker 17: That because of the Council of Nicea, they just left
out I was left out.
Speaker 4: But it is actually so reviewing in the fourteenth century.
Speaker 6: Now these Protestants are laughing about Billy Carson and the
Council of Nicea. But the irony is that Rouslan and
his co host don't even know what's in the Council
of Nicea, because I guarantee that they haven't read the
Cannons of Nicea, Because if they read the Canons in Icia,
they've realized that the Niceing Creed is not just what's
produced by the Council of Nicia. There's canons church law,
and everything in the Canons of Nicea refutes Protestantism.
Speaker 5: There's nothing Protestant at all.
Speaker 6: You've got episcopacy, you've got the diaconate, you've got the altar,
the Eucharist, You've got all these things in the Canons
of Icia that are not Protestant. And yet they're laughing
at Billy Carson as if they have a connection to
Nicia as Protestants.
Speaker 5: No, you don't.
Speaker 6: Now, you might intellectually profess the deity of Christ, but
you don't profess the rest of what's in Nicia. So
you're not really in a much better position than Billy
Carson in terms of arbitrarily picking and choosing from history.
Speaker 15: Is he didn't know that those were the same words
the Gospel of Barnabasus paraphrases Dante's Inferno which is written
in thirteen fourteen. We don't have any evidence of it
prior to the fourteenth century. So I'm a historian. So
if there is something that denies the Crucifixion, I want
to make sure that I'm analyzing it and that the
methodology by which I analyze it actually reveals that the
content can be accurately tied to the event we have.
Speaker 17: You know, Billy Carson's face to this whole thing looks
like someone that's asking an accountant about tax information.
Speaker 6: Like it's kind of like, all right, this red headed
guys get on my nerves. If I do go on
Rouslan's show, I'm gonna be uncharitable to the red headed guy.
Now that's a joke that I'm making, and I guarantee
you that they'll probably say I can't let you on
the show, Jay because of the uncharitable comments you made
to my red headed co host, when obviously I'm making
Joe's say.
Speaker 5: See, this is how these people are.
Speaker 16: Beings that are coming down, similar to Jesus coming down,
except the beings are coming down with advanced technology. Jesus
is coming down in a manger as a humble bait.
Speaker 6: So this is what I guess getting now to the
alien ancient alien stuff that Billy Carson promotes, Right, why
are we even having to debate Billy Carson?
Speaker 5: You see what I'm saying. It's like when when Matt
Walsh put out his what is a woman?
Speaker 6: Oh, we own them, dude, we own all them. People
that was arguing in a man could be going, I'm
like the fact that you're having to make a documentary
about what a woman is means that we've lost in
the culture already. The fact that you got to refute
Billy Carson means that we are way down the rabbit hole.
We are way down the downward spiral. Okay to quote
a tarent A resonoir Okay.
Speaker 14: Lower technology. Right, And so that's the issue.
Speaker 6: Like we're gonna be having like documentaries and debates that
two plus two is four and then people are gonna
be like, oh, we own the math deniers, dude, a
Succo net libs two live. We proved it plus two four,
We're going bays rat wing.
Speaker 14: We're reservings maybe coming in vulnerable, they're coming in powerful.
So it's like it has to be inverted, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 16: It has to be it has to be inverted, and
so he has to attack the true story, which is
Jesus Manuel got among us and that's what that's how
we get He set himself this strap by consistently in Christianity.
Speaker 14: He finally got his car pulled.
Speaker 5: That's crazy.
Speaker 15: Go ahead, single copies of the Gospels that can be
dated to the second century, that all do have the crucifixion.
I have affectimately behind me of.
Speaker 8: Of p.
Speaker 14: Sixty six.
Speaker 8: This is it.
Speaker 6: This debate reminds me of me debating Pedro.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 6: Pedro was like looking down the whole time, like he
was like he was embarrassed, right, And Wesley Help looks
like a Wesley Help looks like a damn drill sergeant
from Starship Troopers. I feel like he's going to be
telling me to go, you know, shoot the space bugs
or something. In fact, he is basically shooting space bugs spiritually,
because Billy Carson's worldview is.
Speaker 19: Like Starship Troopers theologically, right, So it's like this is
like theology Starship Troopers over here with Casper van Diem
facing off against you know, alien space bug theology of Billy.
Speaker 15: Corson late second century copy of the Gospel of John.
I work with this particular manuscript. This is an almost
complete copy of the Gospel of John, and it has
the Crucifixion. And so if we're relying on something like
the Gospel of Barnabas, which is not just that there's
debate about it, it's a known forgery. I mean, no
one's referring to the Gospel of Barnabas as anything other than.
Speaker 10: If you say it's an unfortuen esh. But I'm going
to go with that.
Speaker 6: So now, this is the text from the thirteen hundreds, bro.
I mean, like, if it's from the thirteen hundreds, then
it's not close to the first three centuries.
Speaker 5: You see what I'm saying. I mean, come on, dude,
what's up with this?
Speaker 6: Dude's jean shirt, by the way, a button up jean shirt.
Speaker 10: Is this?
Speaker 6: This is rous lines like I'm gonna reach out to
the working class bros out there with my jean shirt,
redheaded ginger man here, my ginger every man.
Speaker 14: Here, appreciated form.
Speaker 16: If you say it's the fort Dram gonna go with that,
then what ends up happening is he basically says that's
only a tenth of what I talk about.
Speaker 14: That's only a small, small percenttion. We don't care all
the other stuff you're teaching. We care about the stup
you're teaching about Christianity. That's our beef with you.
Speaker 6: Bro Okay, I care about all the ancient alien on
That's that's just a lot more interesting.
Speaker 5: Let's get to that stuff. Let's talk about the you
know we was, We.
Speaker 6: Was gods and flying pimptile pyramids. That's what I want
to hear about. I want I want to know what
pyramids that I want to know where to go that.
I'm gonna uproot that pyramid. I'm gonna get the gold
and I'm gonna trick out my pyramid as I fly
through space in a pimpt ole pyramid. That's what I want,
and that's what the audience wants.
Speaker 5: Reson I.
Speaker 6: I can't understand why you don't see that we want
tricked out space pyramids made a goal.
Speaker 14: That's what ain't just good.
Speaker 10: They discovered the Book of They discovered the Book of
Jesus's Wife, which is at the Harvard Seminary. A little controversial,
but they claim that this.
Speaker 6: Is they They discovered the Book of Jesus's Wife at
Harvard seminary area. Do you remember the story. I've told
this story many times of the gnostic woman. The I
think she was at Harvard, either Harvard or Princeton. There
was a PhD woman who found some sort of feminist
Gnostic gospel and it was this was like twenty years ago.
It was how did it's It's mentioned in uh Hoffman's
volume two. I can go get the exact reference here
in a little bit because I forget the name of
her book. But it's like twenty two thousand and three,
some woman, Oh, I found this was in the y'all
don't remember this, But in the two thousands, when Dan
Brown's Gibberish came out, there.
Speaker 10: Was this.
Speaker 6: Fad of Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas Dan Brown, right,
the Secret Code of Blah blah blah, right.
Speaker 5: All this stuff was really hype then.
Speaker 6: And this woman put out on her version of it,
some professor at Skittles University wherever she was, and she
had found this secret gospel and she had translated it
and it was all made up. And when they confronted
her about it. This is a great insight into the Left.
By the way, they said, why did you, how did
you think it was intellectually honest as an academic to
claim that you had found this ancient proto feminist gospel.
And she said, well, but it was against the patriarchy,
and so it was justified, and I don't need justification
because anything against the patriarchy is therefore justified. And so
I was in the right even though it was all
made up nonsense, because I'm fighting the man man literally,
that was her argument.
Speaker 10: Anyway, the record that Jesus may have even been married,
which then that's true and adds more to the hypothesis
that maybe he wasn't crucified.
Speaker 16: So is it so you see what he did always
at the Harvard Library. So that's like the credibility anchor.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I mean there's a bunch of other nonsense suss stuff
coming out of Harvard too.
Speaker 9: Like, so.
Speaker 6: One thing that's ironic about Billy Carson citing the fact
that it's at the Harvard Library. Everything that Billy Carson
says is one of percent against anything establishment, right, I mean,
it's the most wacky space theology, space opera stuff. But
then he's gonna slide in this fact that there's some
manuscript at Harvard. Well, bro, you don't like Harvard doesn't
believe anything you say. And by the way, I don't
care what Harvard says anyway. I mean, Harvard's a total CIA,
you know university. It's a bunch of nonsense. But it's
just funny that Billy Carson, who says the craziest new
Age we was King's space God's alien theology, will try
to slide in a Harvard reference when everything he says
is one percent against anything that would be at Harvard.
Speaker 5: Right now, actually, I take that back.
Speaker 6: I mean, if Harvard is putting out in NaSTA Gospels
like that other woman, and I mean, maybe maybe Billy
Carson should be the chair of the theology department at Harvard,
I'm gonna take that back. I literally want to see
and we was Kane's department at Harvard, and I want
to see Billy Carson in that chair. And by the way,
it's not going to be a chair that's a rolling
you know, gamer professor. Chair is going to be a
damn golden throne with jewels in it, because it's a
space God.
Speaker 5: We was King's chair.
Speaker 14: That's why watch Watch what Watch What.
Speaker 15: Jesus's wife is in the Harvard Library However, the reason
we know it's also not legitimate is because even though
the manuscript but pyrus that is on was carbon dated
to the fourth century, the text was actually copied from
a PDF version of the Gospel of Thomas known as
Grondin's Interlinear And there can we start.
Speaker 6: With the south We like, what if we did adult
think about it instead of the must be racketing.
Speaker 4: We literally just get that in like a five video
coming from a PDF like it as it's as new
as the Internet.
Speaker 14: I think.
Speaker 10: So.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's like people haven't figured out yet that in
the religious domain there are con men and frauds and forgeries.
Speaker 5: Ask the Vatican. The Vatican is bro.
Speaker 6: The Vatican was forging documents way before Internet.
Speaker 5: Bros were forging documents.
Speaker 6: Okay, the Vatican was printing mean coins way before it
was doing it, was doing document rug pulls, way before
crypto nerds on the Internet were doing it, way before
hawk Tua was doing it.
Speaker 5: Me named oktuah.
Speaker 6: That's my Indian name, by the way, uh in an
official Indian parlance. And I don't mean they took the
stunts from here Indian.
Speaker 5: You know what I mean, y'all know what I mean.
Speaker 6: I'm talking about American, red blooded, born and raised Indians,
those kin the real con I'm talking about Daniel day Lewis,
last of the Mohicans, those real Indians.
Speaker 17: It's not even like a in the thirteen hundred's type
of coffee. It's like a nineteen nineties copy.
Speaker 14: It's like a two thousand and five copy.
Speaker 1: It is good.
Speaker 15: There was a mistake in the coptic text of Grandin's
Interlineer that was copied into the Gospel of Jesus's Wife.
We can tie directly to not copping from an agent text,
but actually copying from an online version of the Gospel
of Thomas in a PDF form. I think we need
to make sure that we're going towards not just early sources,
but actually credible sources. And unfortunately, neither the Gospel of
Barnbus nor the Gospel of Jesus' Wife are credible sources
and agreed upon by not just the vast majority of scholarship.
But I don't know anybody in the field of paparology, haliography,
historiography who actually refers to these documents as being legitimate.
Speaker 10: That's fair enough that I can respect that. So let's
go into the Old Testament a little bit.
Speaker 7: What time?
Speaker 14: Wow, Wes protect.
Speaker 6: I thought we were going to a MGM sports bet ad.
With all that cheering in the background, I thought, Rousselan
is going to start pimping out MGM's sports bet.
Speaker 8: Was that?
Speaker 5: What was that sound?
Speaker 6: A crowd sound effect? Okay, I think that's the essence
of this. I mean, I'm glad we had Rouslan's eleven
minute breakdown because I sure as heck I'm not gonna
sit through however long. This was two hours of Billy
Carson's I wish we could have got more space alien
stuff because that would have been a.
Speaker 5: Lot more interesting, you know what I mean. Let's get
a little more action.
Speaker 6: Let's get some space battles, Let's get some Starship Troopers.
We already had Billy Carson basically debating Casper van Dean.
There does nobody get these jokes? Anybody get the jokes
I'm making. Nobody's seen Starship Troopers, nobody knows what I'm
talking about, because I thought that was a pretty good one.
Come on, Wes Huff, looks like Casper van dem Come on, now,
tell me he doesn't y'all know what I'm talking about
nobody's seen Starship Troopers? Was anybody in the nineties?
Speaker 5: Am I the only one that was in the nineties?
Speaker 6: Look right there, Billy Huff. There's Billy Huff right there,
he's over here, pre supping Christmas Jones.
Speaker 5: What's her name?
Speaker 6: I don't know any actors real names. All I ever
think about is movie names. So Denise Richards, right, Christmas
Jones from start from James Bond right, So Casper man
Dims over here pre supping. You know Gary Busey's son,
you can tell by the You can identify Gary Busey's
son by his teeth because he has his dad, his
dad's teeth.
Speaker 5: Literally put into his head.
Speaker 6: And you got Christmas Jones over here, and then Casper
Van Diem and again it was just like Starship Troopers,
except it was a spiritual Starship Troopers, and Billy Carson
had that alien game that his alien game was not
on point in that debate, was it?
Speaker 9: No? It was not?
Speaker 6: So once again, how am I James analysis has vindicated
because we were making fun of Billy Carson freaking a
year ago. So anyway, all right, let's move on to
the next debate. We got some highlights we're gonna hit here.
This one is really long three hours, so we're not
gonna hit all this. We're gonna hit the highlights Ubi
versus et Barah hotly anticipated so many years in the making.
Speaker 5: Before we get into it.
Speaker 6: My first criticism is I wish this debate had not
been so hyper precise, but I suspect that Ibarra probably
would only do a hyper precise debate. The problem with
the hyper precise debate is that this went over ninety
percent of the audiences, like ninety percent of the content whatever.
Nine percent of the audience is head I think because
the debate was specifically the papacy of Pope Vigilius in
what fifth.
Speaker 5: And sixth centuries?
Speaker 6: So was the Vatican One concept of the papacy present
in the fifth and sixth centuries. I don't mind the
top like that's a great topic. I think it would
have been a little bit better if it had been
was the Vatican One concept of the papacy manifest in
the first millennium? But maybe Abara said.
Speaker 5: Well, it's going to be more precise than debt.
Speaker 6: So let's uh, Tom, We're gonna start with Michael Knowles's
face and do we get fifty percent off of Michael
Knowles's sweaters, because that's the only thing I care about
in this Cyber Week sale. Can I get fifty percent
off of Michael noles sweater? That's all I care about? Right,
So let's go to Eric Ibara right here, and I'm
gonna I'm gonna try to withhold from making jokes because
everyone says that that's uncharitable.
Speaker 5: Don't make jokes. It's uncharitable. It's uncharitable if you make
a joke. DC, we're working, says for three dollars silence.
Speaker 14: Silence.
Speaker 6: Also, I'm a little nervous about playing too much of
this because Matt Frat has not appreciated that I have
impersonated his voice. See, this is how sensitive the people
in this whole sphere are, right Like, they can make
a million videos about you all day long. If you
impersonate them, then you're muted. Because I tried to comment
on this debate, no one could see my comments because
of course Matt Fred has had me muted for many years.
Speaker 5: That's fine.
Speaker 6: I don't care what Matt Fred does. But it's just
like this whole sphere of people is just so just passive, aggressive, man. Anyway,
let's get to We're gonna do a Borrow's opening statement,
ubi's opening statement, and then we're gonna go to the highlights.
So let's see if we can get through this.
Speaker 4: Thank you Matt for hosting this debate. Thank you UBI,
Denny for accepting I should begin by briefly defining Vatican One.
Vatican One's doctrine of papal government can be boiled down
to three things.
Speaker 6: I was hoping that they would do this now. I
still have not seen the opening statements, so this is
the part that I actually missed, so you're gonna get
my raw, fresh reaction to the opening statements. I watched
about the second and third thirds of the debate, so
I'm trying to catch up to everything in here. And
my first concern was, and I know this from so
many years of debating Roman Catholics and myself formerly being
Roman Catholic and knowing this tobby very well. Quite often
in this unfortunate genre, people don't define what Vatical one
actually says. So I'm happy that at least Debora is
going to do that. I don't know if it's going
to be correct, but let's see what he says.
Speaker 4: Number one, Jesus conferred supreme authority to Peter alone. Number two,
the perpetuity of this authority in the Bishop of Rome
as the successor of Peter until the end of time.
And three the nature of this authority as including full
power to teach infallibly and to possess immediate, direct, and
universal jurisdiction over all Christians. My job today is to
prove these.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 6: Now, there's already a problem with this definition, because although
those three the broad things are correct, what was not
mentioned was the extraordinary magisterium and the universal ordinary Magisterium
being guided by the terrorism. And that's really important for
this debate because a lot of times, and you're gonna
notice in this debate that Eric ends up pushing what's
called papal minimalism. Tim Gordon is now pushing minimalism. All
of the modern pop apologists of the papacy have moved
into this domain now of pushing what they call papal minimalism,
precisely because they have to move in that direction to
try to rescue the position because Frank is so bad
and such an embarrassment. So they have to try to
minimalize the actual authority of the pope, what he's up to,
what he can say, what he can do, what's binding,
what isn't to make the position work. However, when you
actually read about it, can one there is no papal minimalism.
It is the old peopal maximalist dogmatic council. And that's
why every time I bring this up, you hear me
arguing and looking for argumentation about ordinary magisterium. Let's find
ordinary magistran Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith, all those
things that are be believed, which are contained in the
Word of God has found a scripture, tradition, and which
are proposed by the Church, has matters to believed on
the real whether in solimn judgment or or universal ordinary magisterrum.
So notice that this topic was not mentioned so far
in the debate. Maybe it will come up later, right,
maybe not, We'll have to see. But so far it's
just left kind of broad to be that the Pope
has this universal authority. But the reason this matters is
that in the papal minimalist approach, they're going to try
to argue that the only thing that you're really bound by,
or that we hold Francis accountable to, is this minimalist
idea or this minimalist thing. The only thing he can
pronounce is the occasional sort of ex cathedra type of pronouncement.
Speaker 5: But that's not the case.
Speaker 6: In fact, what's binding is the entire domain of Catholic
theology that's under universal ordinary, et cetera. And they define
that as anything that Rome has always taught at all
times and in all places. Now that's a very broad definition,
but that's how they define it. In terms of the
ordinary universal Magistrate, that's also binding, and not just the
so called ex cathedral pronouncements. But the reason that matters
is that that means you are bound by much more
than a minimalist list of ex cathedral documents. By the way,
there is no actual list of what's ex cathedral. So,
in case you thought that the position made it clear,
and most Roman Catholics in the pop sphere think that
the papal position is minimalist and it makes it clear,
it doesn't because you don't actually ever have.
Speaker 5: A list of the ex cathedral documents.
Speaker 6: Now, if we were in the Roman Catholic system, wouldn't
we expect there to be an infallible list of infallible
documents or the infallible list of the ex cathedra statements,
an ex cathedral statement about what the ex cathedra statements are,
then we would know. But no, actually, in the Roman
Catholic system you don't actually have that. You have broad
criteria that every individual Catholic has to then interpret this
massive amount of documents and history and decrees and so forth.
So note though this is Vatican one on the screen,
and Vatican one does not restrict it to the solemn judgments,
namely the ex cathedral, it also says the ordinary magistarian,
all of those things are dogma and must be revealed
as or must be believed as divine revelation. So that's
very important because they oftentimes overlook this and blow past it.
And just like with natural theology, where Roman Catholics will say, well,
we all believe in God logos of John one. That's
just like the logos of you know, the pagan Greek philosophers.
We all believe in logos, we all believe in God,
because if you believe in one God, it's all the
same God. That is a word concept fallacy, that's trading
on a lot of ambiguous language. And likewise, in so
many papal debates, you have this not clearly defined notion
of what people and bility if infallibility actually is, versus
the assumption that all I just have to prove these
sort of generic ideas about the Bishop of Rome in
the first millennia are the first few centuries. So in
other words, if Rome is mentioned as first, if Rome
has an appellate authority in sartikar et cetera, et cetera,
why couldn't that possibly be Vatican One? And as the
debate progresses. What's funny about this this If you watch
the whole debate, and you've probably noticed that multiple times,
Eric actually is kind of arguing and debating what he
has to debate. So it's almost like eventually starts saying,
I don't really have to prove or show papal autocracy
in the first millennium. I just have to show that
there's that there's a possibility that these examples that he
gives can be interpreted in that way, which the more
I think about it, it seems kind of fallacious and
it's more than an argument from silence. I'll read Snacks.
I thought Snack's comment was pretty accurate the way he
said it, and I think you'll notice this as we progress.
A Borro's position, as Snack said, is basically unfalsifiable. It
says that Vatican One can be proven without ever having
to demonstrate it explicitly. Basically, Abara argues that all evidence
and actions that are demonstrable non X. Wait, let me
rephrase that. It basically says that all evidence and actions
can be can be demonstrated to be non X non.
Speaker 5: Papal and fallibility.
Speaker 6: But if you find one document that could be interpreted
as papal and fallibility, then papal and fallibility is true.
And the more that you watch and listen to this
debate and the way that it goes, I think Snack
is correct in that. And maybe we could get father
again and Ice who's in the chat. Maybe FDA could explain.
I mean, is it just an argument. It's just such
a weird version of I don't have to look at
all the counter examples. If I can find one example
that possibly proves my case, that's just such a bizarre, weak,
weird argument. Well, I don't know what you guys think
I mean. And that's why later on the debate, a
Boras says something like I don't think I have the
burden of proof to show papal infallibility. I just have
to show that it's possible. I mean, And that's why
UBI later says, well, Eric, you have a really strong
claim about papal and fallibility. We should at least be
able to see an example of it. And then and
Eric's just like, maybe we don't. Maybe we just have
to have a kind of a generic possibility that could
be interpreted that way, and then my case is proven.
Father Deacon, What do you think about this kind of
a what kind of argument is this?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 10: What would we call that?
Speaker 18: I mean, generally, I guess there would be some sort
of hasty generalization.
Speaker 5: But it's weirder than that.
Speaker 18: It's let's let's use a counter example.
Speaker 5: Okay, So.
Speaker 10: I don't have to.
Speaker 18: Consider all the counter objections of pink flying elephants.
Speaker 5: All I have to do is.
Speaker 6: Show the positive that there might have been a pink
flying elephant. Therefore there was yeah, or what why if
an orthodox person flipped and use that argument what an
orthodox person said, I don't have to consider all of
the uh for the sake of argument papal positions. If
I can show one place where you might read it
as the orthodox position, the orthodoxy is true, nobody would
accept that.
Speaker 18: No, the only time that something like that works is
if you say it's logically impossible, that's such and such.
Then I don't actually have to consider, you know, every
single example if I can actually prove something's logically possible.
But that's not the same.
Speaker 5: Thing, right it is?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean this is a straight up and don't not.
Speaker 18: Being argued whether there's a logically possible world in which
UH and optocracy could exist at a RAT one model?
Speaker 5: Exactly right?
Speaker 6: But I think that if you think about it, then
that's exactly what Eric was kind of trying to do,
was set up an unfalsifiable model for the papacy. And
I think that's what a lot of Romancolics.
Speaker 5: End up doing. What do you think that you just gave?
Speaker 6: Yeah, So basically it's like I don't have to worry
about all the positions or examples contra my position. All
I have to do is give a case where you
could possibly read my example as Vatican one.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 18: Well, then, like you said, why not just flip it
and say, well, I don't have to consider really any
of your arguments, right, because all I have to do
is consider a logically possible world or possible reading in
which yes, the papacy.
Speaker 5: Is false exactly.
Speaker 6: And this is I think why people like Eric does
not have any idea about epistemology or logical fallacies at all.
And if you've watched enough debates with Eric, you know,
go back to our debate which Ubu later references, like
Eric thinks that a debate is basically you just kind
of pile on a whole bunch of evidences, and if
you stack it up high enough, then it's possible to
read your argumentation or your perspective into those examples.
Speaker 5: But I don't think that works.
Speaker 6: When if you go back to my debate with Eric,
what I was trying to do was do a systemic
level argument, where I said, Eric, if there's one dogmatic contradiction,
then the papal system's not true. It only takes one.
But I don't think they think about things in a
systemic way. They literally think of everything in this evidentialist,
stack it up kind of way. And that's why until
they understand paradigm level arguments or tag or any of
that kind of stuff, like, they're just going to keep
floundering and thinking that stacking up a bunch of possible
cases that could be read as Vatican one and just
hand waiving all the counter examples is enough to make
the Vatican one position possible. And you'll notice too that
Eric has way walked back all the stuff he was
arguing in twenty eighteen twenty nineteen. If you remember back
to that time, Eric was arguing, as UBI pointed out
at that time, that Pope Leo's tome is ex cathedral.
Speaker 5: Eric doesn't argue that anymore.
Speaker 6: He's walked all that back and conveniently doesn't talk about
the fact that he's walked all that back.
Speaker 18: Go ahead, We'll have to give a credit to Eric, though.
I think he's found his kind of niche and knowing
his audience and what people respond to and as far
as trying to persuade is people. Yeah, most people don't
understand epistemology, logic and fallacies and stuff like that, and
it just goes over people's.
Speaker 5: Head when we go over that.
Speaker 18: And so what Eric's found works is to do exactly
what he did exactly it looks it confuses people, but
not confusing the people in the sense that like going
over basic you know, kind of paradigmatic epistemological questions and
stuff would confuse people. It confuses people that they don't
see what he's the logic behind his arguments.
Speaker 6: Not it's terrible. It's a terrible line of argumentation.
Speaker 5: And again he throws.
Speaker 18: Enough history and enough quotes in there, and I actually
have to say it works like it looks on the
surface really good, like this guy's out doing all the
Orthodox on this or something like that, because you just
stacked up enough you know, quotes and stuff like that,
and so I think he's picked up on that.
Speaker 5: He knows what works.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, the quote mind model will never cease
to be effective in duping mid to low tier observers
for sure. All right, let's get to a little more.
Let's get to Eric's opening statements, or we'll never get
through this.
Speaker 4: Three things from mutually acceptable sources of Christian history. I'll
be restricting myself to three things. The ecumenical councils, the
Church fathers venerated by East and West, and the expertise
of scholarship, particularly Eastern Orthodox Byzantinists. My opponent Ubi Petrus
takes the position that the Bishop of Rome indeed had
a universal primacy of real power and jurisdiction, but one
that is mediated and granted to him by canonical law.
When and if a pope appeared to be exercising legitimate
authority in the first millennium, UBI takes it as merely
the prerogative that constitutional law gives to the heads of
a council. However, while it is true that popes often
acted as heads of councils, I argue this is a reductionism.
This will be the crux of our debate. Before diving
into the historical sources, let me ask this, what should
we be looking for in history? Some think if the
papacy is true, history would be filled with examples of
absolute and unstoppable papal individualism, that is, the pope doing
everything himself over and against everybody else. However, Pious Denith himself,
the pope who presided over the First Vatican Council, did
not believe that this was the logical result. In June
of eighteen seventy one, the year after Vatican I Pious
the Ninth, except that the famous instruction of the Swiss Bishops.
Speaker 6: Now I want to make one comment here, which is that,
for rhetorical purposes, this sounds plausible. I understand where Eric's going,
and he's already kind of setting it up to where
he's having He's saying, Look, maybe we don't have to
have a lot of examples of this in history, and
it can still be true.
Speaker 5: But let's think about the logic of this.
Speaker 6: According to the argumentation of Attican One, the way that
it presents its its approach to ecclesiology, and the way
that almost all the Roman Catholic apologists present their argumentation,
their case is that this is so necessary to the
governance of the Church that without this method or model
or office being exercised, the church cannot maintain its fundamental unity.
So remember that, because if that's the case, and it
was not exercised clearly or done or utilized, even though
the pope perhaps had this power in the first millennium,
then it's still a gigantic failure to not exercise and
use the power that is argued by Vatican One to
be the very thing that guides and ensures the unity
and preservation.
Speaker 4: Of the Church.
Speaker 6: So it's already a silly argument to say that just
because it's not used doesn't mean it's not there.
Speaker 5: Well, if it wasn't used and it was there, then
it failed.
Speaker 6: To do the thing that Vatican one says it's created
and there to do so even that is stupid. And
by the way, we would expect that the Church, for example,
when it defines itself at Constantinople one, that it would
include some notion of the governance and model of the
church when it defined the church. But what does the
Niceno constant Pologian creed say. It says one Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church, nothing about Peter, nothing about Rome. Why
if Vatican one is true from all times, of the
earliest days, in all places, would there not be a
mention of Rome in its placed in the creed that
the entire church is using for hundreds of years or
a millennia.
Speaker 5: Well, it was a seed formed that grew into the tree,
but it was always there.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's just like they go back and forth
back and remember that's moving the goalposts. And remember that
Vatican won. Pasture Attornis and Satis Cognetum of the of
the thirteenth both say that the understanding of Vatican won
because those are relative, those documents and those statements are
Vatican won in relatives Vatican won that it was always
understood from the early days of the Church that this
was the governance.
Speaker 5: Model of the Church.
Speaker 6: Yet when challenged, as we've repeated this a million times,
when Romiic Catholck pap Apologist especially our challenge on this point,
their retort is always, well, it was a seed form
that grew into what we have today.
Speaker 5: It cannot be both. That is a mutually exclusive claim.
Speaker 6: It can't be the case it was always universally there
and understood from the very beginning. And it wasn't always
there and clearly understood and utilized, and it root from
a seed.
Speaker 5: To a tree.
Speaker 6: Those are mutually exclusive claims. Roman Catholics, So which one
is it? And don't flip flop back and forth and
move the goalpost between the two different positions and claims.
Yet after however many years, I've been interacting with Roman
Catholic apologetics since two thousand and two, so twenty two
years of watching and looking at this domain, almost twenty three,
and I've seen this flip flop back and so often
that it just really gets old. I'm tired of this
flip flopping back. Which one is?
Speaker 7: It was?
Speaker 5: It always there?
Speaker 6: In a seed form. What does that even mean? It
was always there, he could have had it, but he
just didn't do it.
Speaker 5: Well. Then the papacy's a massive failure. It didn't do
the thing it was supposed to do.
Speaker 4: Which made it clear that the pope, both before and
after backing one, is morally bound to work together with
his brother bishops and the government of the church when
he is head of the CDF. Father Joseph Ratzinger said
that the papacy and the episcopate is quote reciprocally related
and inseparable close quote. If that is true, that should
influence our expectations as to what we should find in history.
Speaker 6: We should now this is the move, This is him
setting up for papal minimalism. And the reason he can
argue for papal minimalism is because Vatican two's ecclesiology imported
synidality and tried to so called balance out the claims
of Vatican I and so, as Ubi will later mention,
there is a kind of dual ecclesiology going on in
the Roman Catholic model, but that itself is a demonstration
that we don't need this and this is not the
ancient model of the Church. There's not competing ecclesiologies in
the church, especially if you believe in the divine governance
of the church. Did Jesus establish an ambiguous, unclear model
of ecclesiology to where, well, maybe in the first thousand
years it's a cynidality and everybody's working together in collegiality,
or maybe it's the papacy working together with collegiality. So
Eric's just setting up a paple minimist position, which is
trying to give a place to and trying to incorporate
this snodal model, which, by the way, Tim Gordon has
been bitching about for an entire year plus because he says,
this is the Vatican now conceding and giving up the papacy,
because it's gonna mean ultimately that women can be priests,
and women can be degans, and women perhaps should be
included in the governance.
Speaker 5: Of the church.
Speaker 6: Right, That's all Tim Gordon is fussed about for a
year or two now, right, because that's where the Vatican
two real novasort of ecclesiology is actually going. Tim's correct
about that, But cynodality is a concession not just that
Vatican two, but more recently in the Alexandria document, which
admits everything that we've been ninety percent of what Orthodox
have been complaining about for a thousand years. I don't know,
I can't remember if they bring up CH eighty and
Alexandria or not. But the point is just that this
is not actually a win for the position to say that, Okay,
maybe Vatican one was an ultramontanist, so we're going to
balance it out with collegiality and senidelity. Because wait a minute,
according to Tim Gordon and everything he's talking about with
these Novasorto goblins, like collegiality and sinality for the Roman
Catholic system means women being brought in, skittles stuff all
of this.
Speaker 5: Now, maybe Eric.
Speaker 6: Thinks that that's not true, but I mean, who would
really believe that that the skittles stuff and the women
priests and deacons as if that's not coming right? I mean,
and Tim Gordon's correct about that, But Tim Gordon is
not correct about the idea. The fact that synodality and
collegiality is this huge liberal innovation. Liberals are using that
in the Nova sotosphere to bring women and skills in
But cinidality and collegiality is the governance model of the
Church in the first millennium, and that's what Chiatey and
Alexandria admit. And Iborro is trying to position himself as
this I don't know, enlightened centrist kind of well, look
we got a kind of an ecclesiology over here of pope.
We got a kind of an ecclesiology over here of sininelity.
And look already the pope said, he acknowledges the fact
that there's a college of bishops. Well, giving me quotes
and quote minds that the Pope and Vatican want recognize
the college of bishop bishop has nothing to do with
actually proving that the position is correct. That just shows me,
perhaps that it's contradictory. But you'll notice after a million
debates the Roman Catholics they do this all the time,
where if you call out an error, let's say intomism,
they're going far. The quote where Thomas says this, yeah,
but that doesn't tell me that Aquinas is actually correct.
That just shows me that perhaps he's contradicting.
Speaker 5: You say, not.
Speaker 4: Expect to see papal individualism in the texts of history,
But rather a normal conjoining of pope and his brother
bishops head in members, with the added detail that the
pope's authority rests upon foundations that clearly display that he
was given unique and singular privileges to govern by divine
right from Christ through succession from the apostle. Peter, therefore,
simply demonstrating the concilior or sinodal procedure of the church
in the first millennium will not suffice to subtract from
my thesis. Now let's dive into the history.
Speaker 6: But Eric, if the church's praxis are actually against the paphacy,
then it would subtract from the thesis. So he's already
set it up to where just because there's collegiality or
sinidality doesn't necessarily contradict the papacy. Yeah, but nobody was
making the argument that all I have to show is
that there are synods and councils in that disprose of papacy. Well,
what if we show that synods and councils reject and
depose and excommunicate popes as will actually be shown in
the debate and will actually silence Ebara At one point.
Speaker 4: I'll be looking at four things number one the Council
of Chalcedon, Number two the formula of Hormestas, and number
three the three Chapters Controversy, and four a note on
the schism between Pope Simachus and anti Pope Laurentius. In
the events leading up to Calcedon, we see a Greek
archie mandrit Utichs and his Sonodal Accusers, appealing to Rome
for a verdict on Apostolic Christology, to which Pope Leo
the Great issued his famous tone Divine, defining the two
natures of Christ with terminology of papal supremacy. Leo claimed
that because Christ made the apostle Peter to share in
his own authority to govern the universal Church, the person
of Peter's successor inherits immediately divine authorization to bindingly teach
the universal Church. Leo claimed that his tone was the
final word that could not be revised and would serve
as the sole condition for saving communion. Long before he
obtained the agreement of the whole Church at Chalcedon, he wrote, quote,
whoever departs from Peter's confession, that is the judgment of
Peter's successor, has no part in the mystical building that
is the Church of Christ. Close quote. Vasily Bolotov, a
nineteenth century Russian Orthodox scholar and a Great Church historian.
According to Father Georges Florovsky states that in Leo quote,
all the Roman prerogatives of supremacy are to be found
exactly as they have been defined by the Council of
the Vatican close quote.
Speaker 6: Now this is interesting because this model of Eric pulling
from a bunch of Russian Orthodox and Orthodox historians and
what do you call him Byzantinists, is probably an effective
strategy for debate. But the problem is that Eric is
kind of leaving out the fact that all of these
people that he's quoting don't believe the Roman Catholic position.
So in other words, yeah, you could say you could
find people that concede, let's say, Pope Leo or you know,
even later popes, said Gregular the Great. Perhaps they had
an expanded idea of what their jurisdiction and their abilities were,
but that doesn't mean that it's correct. And this was
the thing that Eric did in my debate with him,
if you remember, he would say, what about Pope so
and so over here he seemed to think he had
this power. Well, in an Orthodox paradigm, I could just
simply say he got something wrong, he wasn't correct. The
fact that he did that doesn't mean that it was
therefore acceptable, correct and true. So it's almost like in
the Roman Catholic position, they will argue that if a pope.
And by the way, we argue and we think that
this evolved and grew over time, right the papal prerogatives.
By the time of the eleventh century, with Gregory the
Great gre growing reforms, it gets totally outlandish into full
on quezas hyderak God in Perland. And we've shown that
many times with Unum Sanctum and with Dictatus Pope Unumsangtem's
thirteen eighty two. But Diktatus Pope is eleventh century, and
that's where the pope doesn't just say that he has
all of these spiritual prerogatives of universality and you have
to be in commune with him to be saved. He
actually says you have to believe in the temporal supremacy,
that the pope is a world emperor to be saved. Okay,
And I don't know why Romancallics can't understand this argument.
I've made it abundantly clear countless times. Every time I
say this, they think I'm saying Unum Sanctum said you
got to be in commune with the pope to be saved.
But Vardika too qualified that that's not the argument. The
argument is that Unum sung them also says to be saved,
you must believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop.
Maybe they don't know what that is because Vatican too,
Roman Catholicism no longer.
Speaker 5: Holds to that.
Speaker 6: But in the Middle Ages, the pope was an emperor,
literally a world emperor, and his prerogatives were such as dictatus.
Poppy lays out. This became very controversial with many state
rulers in Europe.
Speaker 5: Many of them didn't like this.
Speaker 6: Some of them went to war with the papacy. If
you go watch the Borgias TV show with Jeremy Irons
where he's playing Alexander the sixth, it's actually correct, where
at one point he says, I have standing armies. If
you do not fight for me, I excommunicate you. That
is nowhere in the first thousand years of the Church. Obviously,
anyone with any ounce of intellectual honesty can realize, as
I argued, recently. I think you guys saw this debate
that I had with the you know, friendly civil Roman
Catholic guy the other day for his name, but I've
made multiple videos on this. Now remember this guy, what
was his name?
Speaker 5: Where is it at? Chris plants?
Speaker 6: Okay, we had this friendly hour fifteen minute discussion over
this topic. And you know, not to be mean to Chris,
but it's almost like it took Chris an hour to
understand what I was arguing. I'm not talking about Unham
Sanctim's claim that you have to be in cumunit with
the Rome to be saved. I'm talking about the claim
that you have to believe in the temporal supremacy of
the Roman bishop to be saved, a view which is
no longer taught post Vatican Two. There is no Roman
Catholic I've ever heard, except for weird tradcats who are
like point oh one percent who actually still say that
you have to believe in the temporal supremacy the Roman
Bishop to be saved.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 6: Obviously, the teachings about freedom of conscience and freedom of worships,
worship and religious liberty in Vatican two discard this idea
of the Middle Ages.
Speaker 5: Obviously, and only.
Speaker 6: The weirdest dishonest creeps on the Internet would try to maintain.
Uh No, Actually, the Vatican still does teach that you
have to believe in temporrel's supremacy, even though they've taken
off their triple crown hat. So the pub doesn't wear
his triple crown hat anymore, which signifies this power they
gave it to the un or whatever. But you've still
got romancality trying to argue this position.
Speaker 5: Anyway. How did I get off on this?
Speaker 6: I'm way off course here, But the point is that
like Eric is acting like this isn't true, I actually
think this kind of stuff is way more devastating to
the papacy than these quote minds of trying to find
like really obscure references to where a pope says he
has all this authority. Okay, good, So what in the
Orthodox position, by the way, and the Roman Kelly position.
You don't believe everything that pope says. Even the Roman
Catholics don't believe everything the pope's say and teach. So
the fact that he finds a quote here or there
where there's an evolving, expansive claim of the Roman bishop
to have more and more power, which culminates in the
eleventh century where they're going reforms of the pope. Being
a world emperor doesn't prove anything unless you presuppose the
papal position to begin with Eric, That's what's so frustrating
about Eric. And if you go back and watch my
debate with Eric from twenty eighteen, he never understood a
paradigm level, system level critique.
Speaker 5: And still doesn't.
Speaker 6: And one of my commenters in the community tab let
me see if I can find it. Long time an
excellent comment or TL Chikody or whatever his name is.
He had a great comment. I think he laid it
out perfectly. Let me read what he said. He said
he always has some of the best takes. Maybe it's
on this other it's on the debate itself, he says.
I donh no, I can't find it. He basically said,
you know, we're seven years into this and Eric has
still never understood a paradigm level critique. But you know,
I haven't listened to the debate I did with Eric
in a long time, and it seemed to remember him
even at saying at one point in the debate, yes, Jay,
I do concede that if you could demonstrate a dogmatic contradiction,
it would negate the papal position. I think he said,
I mean, I'm going for memory. Maybe he didn't say that,
but I seem to remember I'm saying something like that
in our debate. And if that's the case, then that's
precisely why I would argue the paradigm level dogmatic contradiction position.
And if you want one of the clearest, easiest examples,
it is this argument that the papacy used to claim
that to be saved, you have to believe in its
temporal supremacy, meaning that you.
Speaker 5: Have to accept its world emperor status. That's what that means.
Speaker 6: For those who don't don't know what the world temporal means,
that just means that authority in the physical No, it
means in the state realm. And the Canons of Chalcedon,
as I brought up to Chris Plants in our debate,
explicitly forbid all clerics from civil state positions. So how
is the pope going to be a world emperor and
have armies if you want to cite Chalcedon, Well, the
Pope's not bound by the canons of the Councils well then,
how was the excommunicated by the Six Council.
Speaker 5: By the way, that will be one of the.
Speaker 6: Key places where it borrow falters hard in two places,
and we're going to see those. And imagine if Ubi
I don't think it would be faltered. He was a
little unaggressive in the first half. The second half he
got more aggressive. But imagine if an Orthodox apologist or
debater had said.
Speaker 5: I just don't know to it today and I ain't
got no sufficient explanation yet, the.
Speaker 6: Romancolic world would be denounced. Well, they'd be going crazy, announcing.
Speaker 5: The end of Orthodoxy is here. The Roman Catholic Orthodox
apologists have completely capitulated.
Speaker 6: And yet barn I can say this like multiple times,
I don't know, get so.
Speaker 10: Just do.
Speaker 6: And they're just like, ah, yeah, well, well he gets a.
Speaker 5: Pass, right.
Speaker 4: Another twentieth century Russian Orthodox academic Archbishop Fyodor Potzivski.
Speaker 15: All right, folks, it is time for our absolute biggest
deal of the year on Daily Wire plus.
Speaker 3: That is fifty five zero.
Speaker 4: Who contributed notable works on the Church fathers to the Musque.
Speaker 6: So now he's citing like random Russian historians. I've never
gonna I mean I've read a lot of Orthodox theology.
I've never even heard of this guy. Not that he's
not a record. It's just funny that like Eric's going
to these really obscure figures. I mean, perhaps this random
Russian Orthodox historian is like a super Acumenist. I don't know,
we don't know, right, because he's pulling from kind of
random Orthodox historians. I mean, okay, well, who is this
person in the like, what's his position?
Speaker 4: All Theological Academy said that the ecclesiology of Vatican one
can be quote deduced from Leo's system by purely logical
means close quote.
Speaker 6: He also, but again, unless this orthodox Russian Orthodox historian
is super Acumenist, Eric, the fact that they're saying that
people can deduce and derive this does not make it true.
And they also, as Orthodox, presumably don't believe in the
positions that are being out line supposedly from Leo. Now, again,
keep in mind that Eric has tried to prop up
this Leo argument since twenty eighteen, which eventually he ended
up walking back. I don't have Eric's book, so I
don't know if he's still using this argument or what.
But in twenty eighteen nineteen, he tried to argue that
the tone of Leo was proof that the popes of
this time were utilizing ex cathedral. It sounds like he's
still trying to utilize this argument. So I'm going to
give you ubi's response to this argument that the tone
of Leo was supposedly ex cathedral. And also UBI has
a video because I know everybody in the chat is
pretty lazy, they're probably not going to read, and this
is the video that was made for ubi's ch all
in response to this pretty recently. I think this is
the full video that's been released. So here is the
full response of UBI. Because I don't know in ubi's
opening statement yet whether he will actually get to all
of this, but it's sort of like, is this really
where Eric's going, Like the arguments that he walked away
from and tried to walk back, and now he's going
to try to prop that up.
Speaker 4: Maybe let's say stated that juridical immunity and papal infallibility,
while logically deducible in Leo, was manifest in his successors,
Pope Galassius Hormisdas and Agatho the Great, each venerated by
the Orthodox Church the Late Olivier Clemone, who was professor
of Church history at the Saint Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute,
wrote that Leo's tome in the thought of Leo quote
was itself decisive and that the council simply must ratify
it close quote. Clemente sees Leo simply echoing his predecessor,
quote Celestine, who reminded the Ecumenical Council of ephicis that
quote Christ established Peter as the foundation of the church
close quote, and that quote Peter continued to be present
in his successors close quote. The papal legates at that
council said, Peter quote forever both lives and judges in
his successors close quo.
Speaker 6: Just another thing I'd like to add again here is
that you know this sounds like, okay, well wait a minute.
So if there was an evolving, expansive idea of the
prerogatives of the Roman Sea and the Bishop of Rome,
that in our view took many centuries and yeah, you
you you probably had this growing consensus or this growing
idea in the Roman Sea about what they could do
and what they had, which, by the way, it gets
propped up by forgeries pretty quickly.
Speaker 5: After this time period.
Speaker 6: This still doesn't mean that it's so. And let me
give you another example of this. In say, the first
sixth century seventh centuries of the Church, there are all
manner of different lists of the Bible canon. There are
differing lists amongst Eastern fathers versus Latin fathers. There are
differing lists of the New Testament books. There's differing lists
of the Old Testament books all the way up to
John Damascus, Saint John Damascus, who actually thought that Clement
was part of the canon. So the fact that you
find historical examples does not mean that it's true. And
in fact, even late in the game, many church fathers
and saints were wrong about the canon of scripture. And
so if they can be wrong about that, And even
the Roman Catholic position admits that you don't follow one
saint or even one pope per se, maybe you do.
But even if Gregory the Great at one point says,
for example, that let's say, for for the sake of argument,
that he believes that he has authority beyond what perhaps
his predecessors thought Rome had, does that mean that it's true.
All it means is that there was an evolving self
consciousness about what Rome thought they could do. It doesn't
therefore mean that it's true, and it also doesn't demonstrate
the autocracy position, which Ubi will later ask Eric to
give an example of. And that's why the Leo Tome
example becomes such a hot contentious topic. But again, if
the Roman see itself is excommunicated and taken out by
an ecumenical council, which Eric will admit, that's a defeater
for the position that Rome always had this power and
it was the universal consciouness of the Church. And so
Eric again thinks and has had to reframe the debate
to where he doesn't have to deal with counterexamples. He
only has to give this or that example up