INTENSE DEBATES! Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Atheism VS Jay Dyer

You may think the main things to you, But I'm just You're the big daddy.

I'm your father, big Yu, I'm your father, big guy. Clean up to.

Tomato, tyrannical ranger.

You're so high you're candy even tom Are you trumping? You're so high you candy even time? Are you trunking?

What is a tyrannical rainer?

What is a tyrannical rainer? What is a tyrannical rainer?

What is a tyrannical rainer?

You're so high, you candy?

Are you drunking?

Josh?

You came?

Are you drumming?

You may think of being mean to you, But I'm just a debate daddy.

I'm your father figure, I'm your father.

Figures nical ranger.

Josh, you're kidd Are you drunk?

Josh your kid?

Are you drunking?

What is it alannical rainer?

What is it?

Anical rainer? What is it's irannical rainer? What is it irannical rainer?

Yr you came?

Are you drunk?

You're so high you can't even talk?

Are you drunk now?

You're so high you can't even talk?

Are you drunken?

Now?

If you're sharing a hotel room with friends. You're also sharing a bathroom, mad.

Still a monkey?

Climb up on a tree?

What you do up there? Why are you scared?

Why are you running in from every debate that you count? Now you learn from Andrew, you do and from me?

Mad deal of monkey.

You like them female monkeys with them bananas between their trees. Hang down up that dow brown, Maddil monkey. What you're doing to me, Manduel monkey? What you're doing to me, madam?

What you're doing with me?

May What you're doing with me, Madla monkey? What you're doing with me, Madila monkey.

What you're doing to me?

Make what you're doing with me, Madla monket?

What you're doing to.

Me, Madala monkey?

What you're doing to me, Madala monkey?

What you doing to me?

Madam? Mokay, what you're doing to me.

Monkey?

What you doing to me Mandela monkey? Mock mad mokey.

Oh it was amazing.

I love it the much.

Thank you, guys.

Shout out to Amid the Ruins fourteen fifty three, coming back from a long hiatus with those bangers that he made through AI.

It's that time again, late night debate. It's been a long time since we had a late night debate. Sometimes late night debates result in rabies infested feral people calling in. Sometimes we get tyrannical rainers. Did you like the tyrannical rainer song?

I vibed with it? What even is a tyrannical rainer? Exactly? The heck goes up wine mom even talking about you're tyrannical rainer and you're arrogant as beep. Anyway, Matt Dlamlca, what's done?

Man?

I like that blues version of Matt Dolomocky. That was crazy. All right, we're gonna open it up pretty soon, and that's because today was an interesting series of events. I didn't actually plan to do an open debate, but when I saw this goober child, and I will call him a goober child. He is the firstborn son of goober where's he at? Tyson Hockley. Now, this is the dude that called into Sam Shimun some months back and they had a conversation where Sam explained why Islam was not

Boy.

It's hard to tell because his face is a little weird looking, but and he talks like he's got I don't know, nasal issues, but maybe that's the potato syndrome that he has. Anyway, he's a Canadian potatium. And he thinks that Islam is just so cool because it's based and it's like you got Bugatti and all this kind of stuff that comes with Islam, with little to no

So even though he did.

Get Muslim ratio help here, every comment is just savaging him all the way down about how silly he is. And this is not a serious person obviously. If I come over here to his page, it's all about how he wants to be. Sneak O Sneko will follow me if I get twenty thousand on X. Tristan Tate told me soon that he might come on my podcast. So I feel sorry for this. I mean, he looks like

And so what do they do?

Well, as you'll see here, Hamza for example, has a creative way to answer it, but the answer is actually dumber than the other attempts.

The shorts that's supposed to refute the Islamic dilemma. Let's watch Hamsa completely contradict his own God, his own prophet and his own books. Hamsa from Hamsa's den is the simone Biles of mental gymnastics. Let's take a look at his floor root Sine on the Islamic dilemma. The Islamic dilemma is an argument that can take many forms, but in its most basic form, it goes something like this.

Now, there are only two possibilities here.

Either Jews and Christians have the inspired, preserved authoritative word of.

God, or we don't. It's one or the other.

On one horn of the dilemma, if we have the inspired, preserved authoritative word of God, Islam is false because Islam contradicts what we have. On the other horn of the dilemma, if we don't have the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God, Islam is false because Islam affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of what we have. So if we have the reliable and authoritative word of God, Islam is false. If we don't have the reliable and authoritative word of God,

My man here.

Yeah, he's claim that upon him I tested the veracity and the truthfulness of the ingeal cut.

I also claim that Muhammad affirmed the jail. In jail is the Arabic word for gospel. It's a transliteration of the Greek word yuangelian, meaning gospel. Muhammad affirmed the jail, so did Allah.

Upon him, I tested the veracity and the truthfulness of the ingeal cut, which he did, Yeah, he did.

Mohammad did attest the veracity and the truthfulness of the Angel, and so did Allah. We agree, Christians and Muslims agree on this, But our Dawa friends know all too well that the angel we have contradicts the Koran on Jesus, death, resurrection, and divine nature. So they're going to have to claim that the Angel is something we don't have.

This is then.

Testament.

What does the meaning of a jail?

What's the jail?

Good?

Question?

If it's not the Gospel that Christians have, because what we have contradicts the Koran, what is it?

What is the Islamic concept of So that's what I'm asking you.

You're the mussulim.

You tell me what's Islamic concept?

What is the book?

I explain?

I'm going to explain.

So the Quuran makes it clear the Engel is a book that was given to Jesus from God.

What does the Quran make clear?

So the Quan makes in Gel is a book that was given to Jesus.

Now keep in mind we saw a similar type of trek that doctor Khalil took in his debate with sam Shimoon, where doctor Khalil says something like, oh, well, you think Gospel is the New Testament of the message of Christ from the New Testiment the Apostles? No, No, in Ingeel is this unknown, lost, forgotten thing that the Quran is restoring or in some way preserving or bringing back. Now keep that in mind, because this is actually even dumber than the other answer from God?

What's the engel?

In Gel?

Is a book that was given to Jesus from God. One more time, in gel is a book that was given to Jesus from God.

The Engel is a book that was given to Jesus from God.

Now remember this doesn't exist. No one has this except some Muslims say, oh, there was a group of Christians, some sect at Medina who had this lost in jeal of Jesus. Of course, there's no evidence for this. It's just claims that they make up and things that they assert, And of course all of the Christians prior to this

They're going with and this idea is based on five verse forty six of the Quran, which we'll read in a few moments. But let's allow our Dawa friends to finish their point.

Are you a Christian?

Yes?

Do you believe Jesus received a book from God a lah called the Ingael?

No?

We agree with you.

What you don't believe in the Angel.

There you have it, folks. Muhammad and the Koran affirm the angel. But the Angel isn't what Christians have in the New Testament. Instead, it's a book given to Jesus from God. And we don't have a book given to Jesus from God. Hence we don't have the Angel.

We don't have it.

Christians have never had a book that was given to Jesus from God, so we've never had the Angel. Poor Christians, Dawa fans watch Hamsa's clip and say.

I'll hangdle it all and they don't even they're not even realizing how stupid this is, given with what the other statements in the Quran say about the torajeal, I mean, it's like, no, you understand what you've already done here.

Such a powerful response.

The Christians have been humiliated.

But there's a problem with Hamsu's claim that Christians don't have the Angel. Allah and Mohammed say very clearly that we do have the Angel. Consider a few passages. Sir A seven one fifty seven of the Qur'an refers to those who follow the messenger. Muslims believe the Messenger here is Mohammed. Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find inscribed in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them. The Gospel here in Arabic is

Now, how is this possible? If this mystical lost text that was given to Jesus, which is all preposterous, was no longer accent and no longer had Christians and Jews don't have it. This is super obvious and super dumb.

What's the angel? According to our Dawa friends in.

Jael is a book that was given to Jesus from God.

So if the angel is a book given to Jesus from God, and the Koran says that we find Mohammed inscribed in the Engael, that's with us. The Koran is claiming that we have a book that was given to Jesus from God. Right, Hamza and his friend say, we don't have the Engael. Allah says we do, and Hamsa's fans will believe him even when he contradicts a law isn't that amazing. Now we'll take a closer look at the verse that says the Angel is a book given

But here's the next verse.

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has sent down therein whosoever judges not by that which God has sent down, it is they who are iniquitous.

So you see the obvious issue here. Hopefully, if you have two brain cells that aren't completely destroyed by the nonsense that's out there, how could we judge what is with us if we don't have the Angel with us. You see, in other words, the passage, as we've cited many times, tells those who are hearing the new message from Mohammed to judge Muhammad's message by what came before, and even mentions the fact that the Gospel is in

Man?

Hey?

I listened to a lot of the YouTube stuff that you have.

I haven't.

I haven't signed up for your classes or anything. And Irvin Jensen Jensen is that right?

Who is that? I don't know who that is?

H Logo Logos Media. He has this thought thought wire thing that's pretty cool. If you've never heard of him, you really need to check that guy out.

Urban Jensen.

I thought people would know. Uh, but I do have a crit cool question for you, and this is kind of kind of related. I would really hope that.

And I know there's a lot of.

Bullshit going on between this, but I would really hope that you would have a conversation.

You don't have to have a debate, but a conversation.

With Haws from the infrared crew, because he does have some good things to say.

No, why would I waste my time with that? That's completely stupid?

All right, all right, why do I need?

What do you what's the other person.

Irving Jensen, I would assume that you would know him.

He wrote a book on like mushrooms or something or another.

Why would I know a person talking about mushrooms.

Because everything you say actually overlaps with what this guy is saying.

He's basically says that possible. Well, he's I would think you guys would be there.

I'm sorry, I'm just I'm trying real hard not to be mean man.

So that's all good. That's all good.

I'm goodbye. They awful us. Yeah, I'm you.

Hey, Jay, Hi, do you hear me?

Yeah?

I agree to talk to me.

I just want to say it, like time runs fast. I believe it was like five years ago. I was in your discord. Louis hooked me up at you, and I like, I think I prepared you for like what's it Rushet's to date, I gave like a lectures on heat and oh.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I do remember that. Yeah, it's been several years.

Yeah, I'm fine, still move Yeah, I just want to continue on where you started with like the Quran, because what when when when I gave the lectures to you.

It's funny.

One of the things I said to you was start Like Louis wanted me to like make his whole like higher critical attack on the Quran, but I didn't want to do it, and I said in my lecture, like, as Christians, we should always attack the Qur'an from the presupposition that we just we take it as it is and for the sake of argument, we accept. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that Muhammad.

Really say this.

Let's say that every headief is true.

Let's not go into the whole higher criticism because that opens up a.

Can of worms.

It's I agree, Yeah, then they can say it.

Back to us. But this is a trap that Muslims always go into. They love to cite higher criticism against the Bible to us. And as you know, I'm an ex Muslim. When I was a Muslim reading higher critical like critique of the New Testament, well it was like fifty sixty percent of my you know, preparation for attacking Christianity. And like, you know how like I believe it was like what it Sam Chebuno calls ironic, calls part erman shaikh part erhman because of how Muslim cite.

And like.

You have refewed this I believe it was with like Muslim lamptern, and you do that because you're a philosopher. You do the very strong philosophical argument is that just like say, okay, you accept high criticism with our scripture, but you don't want to accept higher criticism of your scripture. You don't want to go you don't want to go into capril, say at Reynolds. But this is an abstract argument that the average Muslim just doesn't it's just stupid

Okay, yeah, that's a great point. Could you give give an example.

That, yeah, yeah, because like I believe this was Ijos. I don't want to like die on his help, but I believe it was Ajos. It was a Muslim apologist to make this argument from its own mouth that the Gospels could not have been written by the apostles because they predict the destruction of the temple. Therefore they must have been written after year fifty, after the destruction of the temple.

Yeah, of course he's not going to apply that to the Quran.

Right.

No, again, this is a atheist naturalist argument that they just like earlifts from port Erma, and they don't understand. You're a Muslim, You're supposed to believe in prophecy. You have to believe in the possibility of prophecy. If you deny the possibility that make prophecies and you're a caffeine, you're a disbeliever.

Yeah, exactly. That's a great point.

And the other augment is that this is I think more popular. I heard Jake make dis arguments. I heard so many well on that.

Point, though, I just want to stress before you go into this other point that Jake makes, like this is why it helps to understand the basic principles of logic and debate, because everybody who knows those things would know you can't use a double standard, or you can't you know, change the goalpost and say well, I'm going to use this principle to critique your position, but you can't use that for my position and why Well, because my position

Yeah, yeah, exactly. But the thing is in Muslims again, Muslims don't understand like universal, general abstract argument. You really have to go in to greatly and show it to them because they really operate on the level. The other argument is that, well, the apostle John could not have written the Gospel of John. And this again, this is a critical naturalist school.

Argan, what is the argument?

You know it? Why did they say that John written?

Because of John?

Beside the prophecy?

I mean there's different ones. Sometimes they argue that because it's so theologically advanced and had to come from some late era something like that the divinity of Christ, and nobody at that time yet believe in the divinity of Christ, so it must have come from a later era.

Yeah. Again, it contained sophisticated like philosophical and it's written in Greek, right, It's written in Greek. And we are told that the apostles, like John Peter, they were just like Galilean fisherman. They were illiterates, right, m hm. Well, as a Muslim, you're supposed to believe in this thing called divine inspiration.

Right, yeah, good point, right, And the Qur'an.

Itself says, well, Muhammad's enemies they accuse him of forging the Qur'an because Muhammad is an illiterate.

And he could not have come up with all right, right, right, he's even called and he called the illiterate one, right, yeah, exactly.

And when it comes to Koran, Muslims use this as a proof by an.

Inspiration, like this proof a proof that John.

When it comes to Christians, it's just taken a naturalist atheist argument like no, well John was a was an illiterate, it didn't be great.

So he could not have written the Gospel exactly.

And this is like this is a flagrant, very basic double standard that like again, as a Muslim, when when I understood this, when when this like inside came to me, this was probably the point where I, like I became a Christian, you know.

What I mean?

Oh, so you recognize this double standard approach and that was something that really clicked with you.

Yeah, it really it blew my mind.

Huh.

That's good to know. Yeah, I mean I didn't I didn't know that that was one of the things that was really clicking for you. But it's good to know that. Yeah.

And again, like.

Every debate, like after I became a Christian author of Christian I've had every day I debate with Christians, every Muslims, and every single debate, they cite whatever part Ermans, whatever dating of the Gospels and what he says like, oh no, they're not written by apostles, they're written late. And every time when you go into it, okay, why does he date them late? Why does he say the apostles could never written them? When you attack these presuppositions, Muslims just

Absolutely, Hey, thank you to all. Thus I appreciate those comments, and you have great points to keep in mind, like why would we accept this double standard? Uh, in regard to your position, but we're not allowed to have that, uh, you know, critique for the Qur'an right you can use that critique of us. Yeah, okay, did your thumbing down? I see you. I'm mute. What's up, c RG, I'm you.

What's going on?

Man?

But I just want to say, uh, I love to have a little religious debate. But the DUDEO was just up here. I want to say a lot of that was false. You feel me as far as like Muslims, that's just that's a that's a bold claim with no proof that Muslims just fall off and say that You're right.

No, they do that all that's not false. They do it all the time. They're talking about not all the time. Right, Yeah, I've been in hundreds of Muslim debates. What are you talking about?

Okay?

The question is are those Muslims and knowledge?

Because all the top Muslims except for one.

Okay, I just take your word for it. That's not my point.

Right.

When I came up, though, I mean before I came up, when I came into the space, I saw I was listening to the recorder.

I guess that was you, right.

I don't know what you're talking about.

The music.

It was a recording play. It was something playing the music. It was no, no, no, no, it wasn't the music.

It was oh the clip I played about? Yeah, yeah, right, So it was.

Talking about the inn jail.

A lot of you know, a lot of Christians, a lot of people like to talk.

About the n jail.

That verse in particular that was being talked about.

I think that was chapter five. What uh, verse forty seven.

That verse is talking is telling the people of the book right to judge the book. That's how they getting judged by that book from the people of that time. Was that's the in jail, the gospel that was around that time.

They are getting judged by that.

They're not getting judged by the Qur'an.

No, it's saying that the people that have prior revelation can judge the new revelation and see that the new revelation of the of Muhammad is in continuity with the old revelation. That's the claim.

That's not but that's not what Muslim scholar is saying that that's what that means.

What does forty eight say a confirmation of the previous script about that verse though I'm talking about the next verse five? Forty eight says that it's a confirmation of the previous scripture.

That what that verse means, right is.

My bad.

I got a phone call back in that time. Muhammad went to the Jews.

Are you there? We lost you? If you want to come back talk, I'm you.

Can you hear me? Okay?

So I just heard your debate or a portion of back and forth with CRG, We've got a question for you.

In order to get the.

Deep meaning of a text, not just the surface meaning, do you need to understand.

The original language?

In other words, do you speak or understand Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew or Arabic.

Understanding the languages can be a great tool, but it does not guarantee either the understanding of a quote deeper meaning, nor does it guarantee that your theology is correct. It's just a tool in the tool set.

Okay, So do you believe in that standard?

What standard.

We just said where you just said that the language is a tool that you could understand it.

Yeah, that's a helpful tool. But plenty of people with linguistic degrees, as you would admit, have heretical and ridiculous theology.

Right.

So, if you use language to communicate your ideas, to either cancel out a specific theology or call it a coffee paste from another theology, you ought to know the source and its source language and a target and it's time.

No, I don't have to know the original languages to know that, because the languages can adequately translate the ideas well.

You just said that you would lose some contact.

I never said. I didn't say that. I said it's a tool, that's all I said.

Okay, all right, so it's a tool. But do you believe that when you look at that tool and utilize it to.

Understand something, will there be a loss of understanding in any shape or form.

It's it's a case by case basis with certain texts. To stop interrupting me, let me finish. No, I didn't say yes. I said it's more nuanced than the either or that you're trying to put upon me. It's a both, and it really depends on the specifics of the situation. But no, we do not have the belief that you only truly know the religion if you speak or know Arabic, for example. And by the way, that would mean that

Yeah, but it is clear, so that's the thing.

So it's clearer than So why are you got different schools disagreeing over anthropomorphism if it's all clear?

Right, But let me just go back to it.

So you're not going to answer that, right, You're not going to answer that, Oh I will.

There's lots of broader context.

Oh wait, so now you're allowed to have a broader context. But when you ask me an oversimplified question about languages, I can't have that.

Oh yeah, you are entitled to whatever you want to hear the host of this this space. But with all due respect, I asked you whether a loss of meaning could result.

I answered you that it's possible in some cases, but not substantially such that the entire religion is unknown unless you know the original languages. We don't believe that.

Do you have an example where it could be lost?

There are difficult texts and passages that require linguistic scholars or textual scholars to try to help to understand those passages, but they're not all.

Yeah.

I think there's passages in the New Testament that are difficult to understand exactly in the Quran, No, I don't study or know the Arabic, but I can give you one example. In many places in the Koran, for example, it will mention the prophet in the book, and it doesn't specify what those generic phrases or people are referring to hints, why you have all the hadith that helped you explain it.

Right, So, but in the Qur'an, so in your example, you didn't bring up the entire sentence, but you said a.

Specific word, like the prophet or the book mean different things.

I said, it's generic, that it's not identified, and hence the hadiths make that clear. So it was very obvious what I was saying.

Okay, So going back to that point where a language potentially in case by case spaces, as you stated, could result into using that tool, could result into a loss of understanding in case by case spaces, right, Okay, So if that's the case, you do you have a complete example where there would be a loss of understanding.

Again, any of the passages that are ambiguous about what prophet is being mentioned or what the book quote unquote is are by their very nature ambiguous. Thus the hadith that later tried to explain and clarify those are my example.

No, I understand.

I think that's a valid point when you say that these clarified.

But do you know as as yourself, a complete sentence from Quran that's ambiguous.

Well, we have revealed to you a prophet, the book with the this book with the truth, a confirmation of previous scriptures, previous scriptures, and this book is this this book meaning the Torah, the Engeal, or the Quran are the previous scriptures? What are these previous scriptures? So it is ambiguous, and so hence other places in the hadith, for example, try to clarify.

So in your opinion that in that's in that specific example that you provided, there is a loss of understanding because it's ambiguous.

Well, and the usage of for example, prophet many times throughout the Quran is ambiguous as well.

When it talks about the word profit isa or Jesus, that's ambiguous.

I'm not talking about those I'm talking about the statements that just mentioned the prophet, the prophet. The prophet does the Koran tell you in all those cases who the prophet is right?

Right? So when it uses the word in English.

What's your point?

Man?

This is yapping on and on and on and what do you have an argument or point?

Yeah?

The point is this, because I think you've just proven it when you use the when you use a word called t he the and then use the word profit, it is your interpretation from a source language of Arabic into English.

When you when you qualify something with the with the what does that tell you?

Well?

There can be a loss of this is there's a loss of me.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue. If you're gonna you're not gonna make a point, what's I don't I don't get.

I think I think the point is here. If you want to debate on Islam, you ought to. You ought to know the source. That's that's my point.

Oh okay, so do you know the sources of Christianity?

No?

I don't so well, so you so once again Islamic double standards. You can come here and debate your religion, but you but you can talk about Islam, but I shouldn't talk about Islam because I don't know the source material, even though you don't hold up the source material on the same standard.

Jay, do you know the source language?

So again, so this is all hypocrisy and double standards, things that you're not going to reply to. No, you're not going to apply it to yourself. So my arguments stand on their own, whether or not I'm an Arabic scholar or not. And so in other words, listen, shut up, by your standard. I don't have to listen to you because you don't know Greek, Hebrew and Arame. So you just canceled out yourself by your own double standard. And

Thank you?

Go ahead, I'm mute, Yeah, I.

Hello, j Thank you for allowing me to speak. I used to be Muslim, actually memorize.

The entire Quran or the Bran.

And one of the things that the point I want to make regarding why I left Islam in addition to many other things, is the the foundational contradictions basically, which is that God a lot a lot basically gave us free will and this life is a test, you know, and you know that test basically decides whether we go to heaven or we go to help forever. But at the same time there's another verse and yeah, but.

Also all uh basically predestines and determines every single event because most of them are occasionalists, which means that Allah is the direct cause of every single event.

Yeah.

Yeah, so it's it's like, yeah, so one of those foundational like contradictions like that never made any.

Sense to me, you know.

And the other thing is is like, you know, going to help forever just because you don't believe in Muhammad or you know.

Some of these teachings.

You know, I get like going to hell forever for killing millions or whatnot, but you know, going to help forever because you don't believe in Mohammad.

You know.

That's another thing.

Yeah, I just wanted to make that point.

But yeah, think, yeah, yeah, I'm glad, I think it is. I think you're right. Like eventually it's kind of clear that there's some pretty fundamental contradictions in this position, this religion, and that's why we tend to focus on those. I mean, they do the same thing.

They're like Trinity trendity would make no sense. Salty m hm, how you doing?

What are you?

I'm trying to follow what exactly the subject is you're trying to debate?

Well, it's any of the topics listed under debates, So Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Atheism, libertarianism, uh, Mormonism, those witnesses, you name it.

Okay, it's my personal view that I think Catholicism, uh should be the one Christianity.

Just based off the history.

And that.

Hold on what does that mean? Just based off the history?

So you know, based off of what Jesus said that you know, he shall build his church on the rock and that you know, that's really what Catholicism was actually built on, was the grave of you know, Peter.

The rock.

So it's built on the grave of Peter. Yeah, do you have any do you have any church? Do you have any church fathers or New Testament biblical proof or evidence that the rock of the church in Rome is built on Peter's grave.

Well, I mean, Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon, but.

He changed Abraham's name too, so what.

Well, I mean it just kind of.

Uh, I feel like the chain of custody, you know what I mean, would be that.

So, but what I'm saying is, why is it Rome? Since there's three patrine scenes sees Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, why is Rome the one that's special?

Because like that's I mean, Jesus actually conquered the Roman Empire.

Jesus conquered the Roman Empire, so the Roman Catholic Church. Okay, yeah, that's a really good argument. Jesus conquered the Roman Empire, and so the Roman Catholic Church, because it's the word Roman, is the one true church. Yeah, stellar argument there, Tony. What's up man? I guess the good news is that if that's where the Roman Catholics are at these days, then we're doing good. By the way, we got seven hundred and thirty if you would hit like and share,

Yeah.

So I was just curious. I'm a Catholic, so I'm pretty well, I'm decently.

Educated Catholic.

In other words, most Catholics don't really know their faith.

Well, I was just wondering, what faith do you practice?

Orthodox?

You're Orthodox Christian Catholic.

All right, we're like Eastern Orthodox.

Okay, I give you, you know, kudos for that, because right now, your your dogma and teachings are are much a little bit more correct than the Roman Catholic.

Right, how is that possible? Given Vatican Ones claims, Well.

The you know, because we've had some problems in the in the Vatican and uh over the years, especially the last fifty or sixty years.

Well, but I mean, how does that how does that Vatican One?

Yeah? Well, you know, I would I yeah, yeah, you know, well I don't want to, you know, because I'm a little different than a lot of other Catholics. And I'm pretty serious. I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm a Carmelite.

So so how are you different? What do you mean?

Meaning?

You know, I I do believe that there was some error.

Because man is man, and there are some things that that get twisted in belief system and and it's and and probably started at Vatican One. So a lot of Catholics will agree with that. In other words, with that statement, I just made that there were some errors and translations of things and teachings from Vatican One, but overall the Catholic faith is pretty much intact.

Do you believe with Vatican one that everything that is proposed by divine and Catholic faith are to be believed, whether contained in the Word of God, scripture, tradition, or ex cathedral solmn judgment or ordinary universal magisterium, are infallible?

Well?

Yeah, yeah, see you're well you really grabbed me, you know, because that's where I do have some questions about the infallibility on who judges that as infallible?

Well, I mean Vatican one says the purpose. Yeah, it says the purpose. Who does it? So we know what the Roman Church teaches?

Yeah, so so yeah, I do have some difficulties with that because I do see lots of how we went from near in other.

Words, from Okay, well, but I mean I'm not trying to me mean to you, but I mean, if you have difficulties with an ecumenical council approved by the Roman Sea, you're no longer Roman Catholic Because Roman Catholicism says that to adopt one heresy or to reject an ecumenical council or dogmatic teaching no longer makes you Roman Catholic.

Well yeah, yeah, I could say right now, I am not going to Mass. I don't like Vatican two Mass. I don't believe it's a valid Mass.

Oh so you're a traditional Catholic, you would call me more.

My beliefs are in the traditional Catholic beliefs.

Yes, but every track Cat I've ever met or non believes Vatican One is infallible.

So you're a why I said when I said there is an infallibility to it, it's just I have some questions.

About Oh so it's infallible except for the places where it makes mistakes.

Well, yeah, I think some problems can I couldn't.

Actually that would have been, that would be I mean that it's not infallible.

So well, nothing's infallible, and man, that's my point.

Well, but I mean the claim of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Roman see is infallible in a man in Rome.

So that's not true if they follow the procedure exactly correctly, which.

Is what they do.

But it actually no, actually it does not say only when they quote follow a procedure, it actually says that also His Ordinary Universal Magistrate is guided by the patrin Charism too, So it's not just the ex Cathedra statements. It's also extended to the Universal Ordinary Teaching Office.

But Orthodox.

Is along the same lines and in beliefs as Vatican ones.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to but no, there's nothing in Orthodox Christianity that's in line with Vatican One. So I'm not trying to be rude, but just know what at all in Orthodox Christianity at all lines up with Vatican One. I mean, Martin Luther, here we go. Oh my gosh, bongo five dollars, Jay big fan. My question is how much choice do we have and what we believe?

They do.

I just think that the problem when we critique Matt Dolo Monkey for saying I'm not convinced, it's not because you can't express that as a kind of an existential dilemma or crisis. It's just that you can't use that as an argument. It's not an argument. It's a psychological report, and in debates, psychological reports of absolutely no value. They're irrelevant. Vain five dollars. Here is a new Matt Dolla Monkey

Can you hear me?

I'm sorry, Martin? Did you want to go ahead?

Yeah?

I was wanting to know what you thought about John Calvin, John Knox, and Martin Luther's work as far as salvation because in Jude talks about the faith that wants to delivered.

Yeah, I'll referenced that passes many times to refute cults.

Roman Catholicism, I think is the cradle of Christianity unless you've been like I have exposed to Baptist Lark Mark Mark Landmarkism, which is it traces Christianity through Peter Lombard.

Are you familiar with that argument?

I mean, I'm familiar with the claims of the Trail of Blood. I have a copy over there. But why would I think the true Christianity is maintained through a bunch of anti trinitarian, heretical, crazy groups. Don't you think that's kind of silly?

I was just asking, so, what denomination do you personally affiliate.

With Orthodox Eastern Orthodox Christianity?

So are you familiar with Brother Nathaniel unfortunately? So what's your take on his views?

He's a quack?

Can you extrapolate on.

This quack equal mentally? Ill?

Okay, what's your understanding of ken Ham.

And the Arc down in Kentucky and advocating the earth is.

Eight thousand years old?

I think that there's some good arguments for young Earth. I tend to favor that view myself. I've never been to the Arc. I think would be cool to go see, but I'm not a huge fan of ken Ham.

You're a huge fan of Canaham.

Not a huge fan of Kenham because I would say he has goofy theology.

Answers in Genesis.

The reason I got started in being a Christian I was introduced to the old schoolfield Bible, the original schoolfield, and it promoted the gap theory.

And recently I came across they said.

Of Pleplo Bible school Notes from nine nine Universal Notes, and they allowed.

For millions of years for the Earth. So I laid that as a fact, I asked this question.

I've run into people who were dogmatically committed.

To answers and Genesis, and they considered anyone who is Old Earth to be a heretic, that's my takeaway. And now this fellowship, are you fami with that.

I'm not Protestants, so I've not been in the Protestant world since two thousand and two, so I don't know anything about these groups or what you're talking about. I was at one time a reader of the Schofield Bible when I was a teenager, but I soon learned that that was a psyop that was funded by the essentially the Jewish power structure in England to promote the idea

So I concur with you, and I am I would like to.

Validate what you said through the readings or whatever resources you can give me, because I am not a Zionist and I personally have ethical problems with the total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And I heard Richard Lamb this is a personal story. Richard Lamb was the head of the Executive Committee for Ethics of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Yeah, they're judaizing heretics and there morons, so exactly. I appreciate your call, but no, I do not like the theology of either Martin Luther or John Calvin. I have multiple lengthy critiques of both of those people, mark In, but thank you for your comments.

You can you hear me? Is this stream like a met alone to ast questions or is it only disagreements?

It's pretty open, So what's on your mind?

I have two questions.

The first one is about philosophy, the others about theology. The first one you can correct me if I'm wrong, But I believe about like two or three months ago, you want to stream, and you were talking about how the law of identity states that like two things cannot subsist together or something like that, and you were saying that the Lord Jesus is above that law, which is why you can have two natures.

Do you remember something.

I don't remember the specific live stream, but I mean I think that if you use the classical definitions of some of these things in the Aristotelian sense, they don't fit into the Christian paradigm when we try to apply them to God. God transcends those categories because those are categories for the created order, so they're not going to be perfectly applicable to the Creator.

Okay, So my question was like, if someone else to how do you know.

That this law of logic doesn't apply to God and the others do with the answer to me, well, that's like, what's divinely ritual to us?

Well, it's not just that, it's that the theological revelation tells us the limitations of the created order and logic applying to God. So, in other words, revelation itself tells us that, for example, God is transcendent, so there's no finite created category that's going to perfectly box him in or define him or encapsulate him. That that's part of apathetic theology and why we say, for example, the essence of God is unknowable. That doesn't mean that God is

You see, Okay, thank you for that. And then I's tha. A question I had about is Luke II, verse.

Fifty two, where it talks about how the.

Lord Jesus grew in wisdom. And I've heard two different interpretations about this verse. Some people interpret it like, oh, that's that's like the human brain of the or Jesus not grew in wisdom, but then the defined mind always knew everything, which I might be wrong, but it sounds a.

Bit Astorian to me.

And then the second interpretition I heard is from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and the way that he interpreted it is.

To say that it's not that the Lord Jesus actually grew in wisdom. It's that it seemed like he grew in wisdom from our perspective.

Just like when the Bible says that he became a curse, it's not that he was a real curse. It's just it's as if he was a curse. Which interpreation do you think would fit better?

I think both can be understood in an orthodox way. I understand what Saint Cyril is saying there, But I also don't think it's necessarily an historian to say that the human mind would have undergone increase. So, for example, just like his human body, right, his human body underwent change. It went from being a baby to being a mature adult. So there's nothing wrong with the idea that the human mind increased in knowledge and in wisdom. So I don't

To grow it.

I guess you could say, I don't think that's necessarily heretical.

I just I just maybe it's because I'm orient or Orthodox, and I'm still looking into Orthodoxy because in my opinion, the true churches has to be one.

Of those two. I'm just on a journey to see, like which one it is.

But I don't know.

I guess the reason that sounds serious to me is like to say that, oh, he knows this in his divine.

Mind, but not in his human mind. The way that I look at it is the person, you know, the Lord Jesus. He either knows it or not.

I don't know.

Maybe I'm wrong.

In thinking about Well, that's why I think when you get to the dispute between Cyril and Ument, not serial, the dispute between Saint Maximus and Peirus, this question comes into play because the idea is that it's not that a change in the human mind necessitates that he is no longer omniscient. That's why we affirm that both things are true of him, that he has a divine mind and a human mind, and we don't make mind a

Okay, I'll go back and re listen to that, just to make sure.

What how did you phrase it? What was you said that? It would sound a Nestorian to say how did you phrase it? Again?

Just to me personally, it sounds a bit of Nestorian to say, like, the human mind doesn't know this, but the divine mind does know it. It just to me, it's like giving personal properties to things that are not persons. The way to argue is like the person the Lord Jesus, he either knows it or he doesn't.

Yeah, but see, that's exactly my point is that mind and will are not hypostatic properties. There are properties of nature that exist in the mode of the person's you see, that's where there's a different there's a distinction between will qua will. Well, all I mean by that is that something can be the property of a nature, but it only exists in the mode of the persons that have the nature. So that's why they're there. This is the difference between the nature and the mode of the nature.

Okay, Now, the reason why I might be a bit confused this because I've only been relievous for like a little over a year because of launching Censor Moon.

And you do you have time for one more quession or yeah?

And by the way, I would say on this point, read the John mcguckan book on Cyril of Alexander and the Chrystal controversy, and read the Maximus debate with Peerists. It's called Disputation with Pearis. It's really short, it's only like ninety pages.

Yeah.

I talked to you before and you recommended thinks cherol in the uh Alexandria and the the Christ Controversiological.

Yeah, I bought it. I haven't read yet because I'm still reading the Orthodox Study Lebel.

I read it once, but I'm rereading it because I really want to get to know about good and then go into like I cimitical councils and the Saints later.

Yeah.

Well, you're always welcome. I'm I enjoy You're a very civil Oriental person to dialogue with, so I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I'm I might not be so civil in a couple of years when I get more information.

Okay, that's fine. I mean I'm not I'm not opposed to uh, you know, having these debates. Did you you've seen we're on my channel. We're doing an oriental series.

Yeah, yeah, both of them.

You guys have made some some good point, good points that I like have maybe you know, think and come up with questions regarding the Christology. But at this point I don't know so much about it because I haven't gone into like the church's, you know. But when I get there, all the ask you a little bit more questions. All lost what I had was about. In Proverbs ninety seven, it says that it's wrong to like rebuke a wicked man, like a person who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.

Like betraying right.

So, for example, the way that the New King James translates Proverbs ninety seven says, he who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, and he rejects a rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. So a lot of times in the Proverbs they do a doubling. It's a coupling that they do so in other words, scoffer is the same. The two sentences or phrases are identical, So the scoffer is the same thing as the wicked man. So in other words, what's meant by wicked man is a scaffer.

Yeah, yeah, okay, that makes a lot of sense, and I will probably jump back going on like a month or two.

Those are good questions, man, what You're welcome. You're welcome anytime. Bible Guy's dude, Yeah, what's up?

Yeah?

Okay, So I have two questions. One of them is kind of related to the JQ.

I don't know if we want to get into that or not.

Well, I'm on YouTube, so we got to be kind of we're gonna we're gonna abide by the YouTube guidelines.

Okay, I think I might.

Be able to Does this relate to the topics or you're telling geopolitics? We're not doing geopolitics tonight.

Oh that's fine.

Then I have another one that.

Is, so I know that Okay, so you used to be Reformed and that he became Catholic and now Io.

So I'm just curious, do you no longer believe in like the.

Reformed doctrines like federal headship and like.

The Covenant of Works Covenant of grace.

So there is a sense in which individual men represent their families, and that is a biblical concept. I don't believe the Covenant of Works is a biblical concept. No, that doesn't exist. And in fact, it would be either an historian or it would be a position of created grace to say that Jesus merited the status that he had. He didn't have to merit the status he had because he was the son of God and a divine person from all eternity, and so as soon as he was incarnate,

Okay, and then what Okay, I'm kind of confused about it because I've been like reformed for a while and I'm starting to see some problems with their views of this stuff. So I'm just curious, what is the Eastern And I've watched some of your videos, so I know.

A little bit.

But do you guys believe infants receive like the effect of original sin or also the guilt.

I was not believe in inherited guilt, and in fact, no one in the world believes in inherited guilt except for Calvinists and maybe Lutheran's, so that's no other religion. Rom mcalleys don't even believe in it.

Yeah, that's crazy. I can't it around it. It's like it's pulling me and I don't know. I'm just trying to.

Figure this out.

But I've noticed, like.

Like even the Baptists are quoting like some Eastern Orthodox Church fathers because there's some Baptists that don't believe in inherited guilt too.

So well, I mean the the scriptures make it very clear that you're not guilty for the sins of your father's right. Ezekiel says that, so how do we reconcile that with the passages that people think teach inherit to guilt,

Okay, yeah, sure, And I know you had a video.

I've been watching it a few times about like Calvinism and original sin.

So I'll just kind of try to keep going through that.

I've got a multiple if you go to my clips channel, Jay Dyer Livestreams and Absurdities, I've got two multi hour lectures about Calvinism and Tulip. I've got a whole lecture on cotails channel about Calvinism and Tulip. I've got multiple lectures on my I mean, I've got out the wazoo on this. Yeah.

Yeah, And I guess last question, and I'll ask, is is there a church father that like specifically talks about how we can receive like the effects of Adam's sin, but.

Not the guilt.

You know, where they really specifically talk about not inheriting as guilt.

I would say any church father that talks about it before Augustine or any church father in the East, none of them teach inherited guilt. Augustine is the first to do that.

Okay, all right, well cool, well, thank you, I appreciate it.

So I would just look up like in Against Heresies right where perhaps when he executes Romans five, you could look up Chris system on Romans five. I mean, there's a whole passage from Saint Photius where he's critiquing the Augustinian position that infants have inherited guilt. Just look up Photius Augustine, Romans five and you should get the Orthodox Ethos website that has an article on that. Marco, Hey, jay, but thank you so much for taking my call.

I have a quod question. Is there kind of a reason why?

Like there's one sort of verse in the Corona.

It's very kind of.

Damning, and it basically says something along the lines of make God kill me if I'm not like a true prophet or whatever like slice the a order. And then there's also like hydiez I talk about Mohammad when he dies, like have of the feeling about I think is a ord being ripped.

Out or something like that?

Is there kind of a reason why that's not brought up into bates more?

I've forgot mentioned a couple of times. What what what do you think is important about that to bring.

Up well, because it basically inside the Qurana basically was that this is a falsification of Mohamad's prophethood if it were to happen, and then later in the Hidisas thatth that it actually happens. So it basically it's almost the kna be predicting Mahomet's falsification.

Yeah, maybe I should be brought up more.

I just it's just kind of a thing that I was thinking right too. And then another thing too that's kind of funny is I don't know what your thoughts are a star too. But I think I noticed is that whenever they critique the writing of the Gospels as being later, it seems to me extremely unjustified to the fact that if you look when most are written, they're written like over.

Two hundred years later after Muhammad.

So how can they critique the Gospels for being written like sixty seven years later.

When the Haydees explaining what Muhammad hads.

Or what he says or supporting the Kuran, we're written over two hundred years later.

Absolutely, Yeah, that's a great point.

And so if you don't mind me asking, I just asking picking your brain.

So one thing is this is slightly more on the debate's side.

You said you would be like kind of more on the young Earth creation side. So I assume it probably would come from more like a philosophical thing, because how.

Would you respond to the claim.

But like, for example, we can see things that are over eight thousand light years.

Away, Well, it's assuming that that traveled. Uh you know that it wasn't that the light, that the universe wasn't created with the light already quote being here.

Okay, gotcha.

And like what about when it comes to things like carbon dating, So it's like I could carbon date things that are, for example, older than eight thousand years.

Yeah, well, there's also a lot of critiques of carbon dating being unreliable, and on top of that, in my understanding, carbon dating also assumes the thing in question that for example, it takes these millions of years for this radioactive decay to happen. So that would be my critique.

So that fills love with soilich from my surety, those love with a particular.

Basically be the justification of circular.

Yeah, it's assuming the lengthy time that would be the thing in question from my vantage point, Okay.

Thank you, and if you don't, might have one another question as well. So when it comes to like, what's you ever debate somebody like Fuin Shapiro or Charlie Kirk kind of more regards to when it comes.

Like faith, Yeah, I in fact I have multiple times asked Ben Shapiro to debate, and one of the one of the tweets got I don't know a thousand likes and I don't remember how many shares.

So yeah, because when when Rogan did the thing with Wes if I watched her last year, we went over that, I was actually one of the firstes to comment, and I was like, they can have.

Because he does a really good.

Because I think West is obviously like you know, he's like apologist is kind of the wrong I guess what do you call it?

It's like the wrong area expertise.

Sure, yeah, yeah, focus as you say.

So, I think it's kind of cool because I think, like I actually a couple of months ago, I was like, because I'm a Roman Castlic and I was trained to Orthodoxy, your stuff has definitely been very appealing and.

Stuff like that.

And so when you mentioned the things from body, and one and two started looking at that and I was like, okay, so I started going to somewhere to bind lurgies and it's it's been very that's good.

Many.

I appreciate that. And thanks for mentioning my name and the do you mentioned on comments or something?

Yeah?

Yeah, I mean I just commented a pumpish of tags. But but now I just imagine one to say basically, thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Yeah. I would love to, you know, go on there and do you have a you know, some kind of a representation, you know, at the level of a rogan that's not you know, Baptist type stuff like what I think I think west Up's a Baptist nail? What's up? You want to unmute? Nael? Do you want to unmute? I guess we lost him. Confused, by the way, if you want to hop on the stream, if you liked the scream the stream, if you like to debate, hit the request to speak and I'll bring you up. Confused.

Hey, Jay, So I wanted to ask have you looked at the channel harmony?

Are you familiar with that channel?

What's up?

He's an orthodox YouTuber, but he does like the story kind of. He tells stories of different saints and then he tells stories of different theologies. Do you know so I want to make a YouTube channel like his? Do you have any resources like books? Because I know you have a video about specific books to read, but do you have any like, let's say, beautiful stories. Books are about beautiful stories that you know of that you can share so I can so I can like read.

Them and then make make a video about it.

I mean, like lives that when you say beautiful stories, what do you mean like lives the Saints or what are you talking about?

Yeah? Yeah, it could be Lives of the Saints. The YouTube the YouTube channel harmony. He has done one about like.

The Youth of the Apocalypse.

Let me see what other ones Youth of the Apocalypse or Truth of the Apocalypse.

The Truth of the Apocalypse. He did one about Saint Pasius.

He did one.

What is a truth Apocalypse?

Is it?

Is that a story?

It's a it's a book?

Okay, I think it's a book.

And then she like adapted it to a video.

Okay, yeah, I've got it pulled up. I'm not familiar with this, but I'm looking at it.

His videos are beautiful if you want to listen to them or watch them, but I don't know.

I can come back later on.

Yeah, I mean, it looks like it looks like he puts a lot of time into it looks really well done. Unfortunately, I don't have any good recommendations on like stories or

Yes?

And one of the hadiths, of course, that Shamun has pointed out and his old articles actually backs up that very view exactly. Eric Zee five bucks was Jesus meaning to create a way to connect to God without church. Some chick in the chat as talking smack no, because he set up a church, right, Matthew is sixteen eighteen, Matthew eighteen Right, The church is the kingdom that he's setting up. The apostles are the princes of the new Jerusalem,

Yes?

Absolutely, This is what I said in the debate with Daniel Haikikitch. You seems like the reconciliation is through a circle, and that isn't one. It is a circle because the Quran is supposed to be confirmed by what came before, but what came before contradicts it, and so you throw out what's in what came before by the what the Kuran says. So it's like it's very simple. It's like,

I think so.

I don't think they're in any skil