Keith, how bout just stick to the substance of the video? This back and forth about who said what about whatever video with who lied or who didn't to somehow validate ones own position against the "lair" is just childish. Stuff little kids do.
@Childinfaith If I were to say that theologica37 removed a video which I refuted, as if he were shamed and embarrassed, when in all actuality that never happened, I doubt you would take such a relaxed position. You would probably tell me to admit the error since it would be wrong go around spreading false statements like that. But I guess since you agree with his position as a Catholic I can understand why double standards would be employed. No I will not ignore this.
This is the last comment I'm going to allow on this shallow character assassination. I never acted "as if you were shamed, embarrassed". I refuted you on a video you made (whole time--on its comment section) and then after making a video of my own, this video was taken down. I very poorly spoke in a single comment which sparked your neurotically self-affirming assumptions to unheard of heights. No more will I allow this. I have not once intentionally distorted the events. Grow up.
Stated another way: to claim you actually meant it was either a video on Cyril or the comments in a video is easily refuted because if you truly believed I only made video comments, then you would not assert that I removed the video due to being refuted. Why? Because there would be no reason to remove a video unrelated to SS and Cyril only because of comments in the comment section. I would just remove the comments. This proves you weren't saying it was either a video on Cyril or comments on him
"there would be no reason to remove a video unrelated to SS and Cyril"
This is your assumption, yes, and on it you've dozens of times accused me of lying. Let us make that abundantly clear. I would (obviously?) refer to that video on those terms because that's when you got frustrated, blocked me and removed the video. Thus, 'the video on Cyril' etc. I have not once intentionally distorted facts. This is all childish and I will no longer allow such comments. A humongous red herring.
All of your failed character assassinations are transparent-- and I'm more than willing to allow people to see these sly tactics. All of this henceforth aside, your latest video commits the same errors without correction, fails to even cite sources (a REAL candidate for deceit) and completely ignores all of the points I have made in my videos. Furthermore, the entire first video is based on eisegesis of me and your utter ignorance to Catholic teaching. You will be easily dealt with.
Keith YOUR OWN errors stand unchecked. You rely heavily on shotty sources and/or do not know how to properly relay a citation-- and you don't present them. That's deceitful. I'm going to have to spend time just correcting basic issues and thats before we get to the dozen or so logical fallacies you commit, and BLATANTLY false assertions you make. And to this other comment-- no you have not dealt with what I've said in that video, I showed how *SolA S. is flatly rejected by St. Cyril.
@Theologica37 Do your best because I have answers to your citations of Lecture 18. I already said I would be building a fresh case, then if you want to respond to my actual position you can make fresh arguments and we can start a good discussion. So make your arguments now and I will address them. Your prior video is obsolete in light of you now knowing what SS is and is not. Take care.
"video is obsolete in light of you now knowing what SS is and is not. " That doesn't follow even if your false assumption were true, I was comparatively working with the type definition you relayed. I presented texts which show that St. Cyril did not believe that Scripture was the only infallible rule of the Faith or the only final determining criterion of doctrine. You ignored them and in empty rhetoric called the texts irrelevant. They apply to SolA scriptura, and destroy your case.
@Theologica37 Well when you respond I will address your citations and prove that 1.) they don't refute SS since we don't believe Scripture is the only rule of faith (which was your initial false argument) and 2.) they do not show the Church has an intrinsic authority apart from the Scriptures. They don't even begin to show that and so release your response and I will prove it in the rejoinder. I'll be away until Tuesday or Wednesday so feel free to take your time and not make more errors.
I wish I could have given you the same advice before you made these videos. And no Keith, in context and by easily demonstrable references we were approaching the same issue; St. Cyril a) NEVER affirmed it, b) in many ways explicitly, implicitly rejects it. With regard to b) you have continually employed this tactic of passivity and then thinking you get to say things like 'I want x,y,z answered'; No, I'm not going to let you play these games.
How could that video "change you"? It had to do with handshaking! Look, there have been popes who have done terrible things but none of them have tried to touch the faith like John XXIII-B16 have. but alas, i do not want to hijack theo's video
And I would appreciate it if this convo does not go any further. We have very different views on this issue and this is not the place. I appreciate your understanding and recognition of this.
You said I made a video about Cyril affirming sola scriptura and then took it down? No that's a lie. In a video about a few new books I got there was an exchange in the comments were I made that assertion to another Catholic. Then you addressed my comments. So if you're not a liar remove that lie. Second, you copy and pasted from the vatican website in this video without giving credit to the website - all you say is "for further reading check out.." I can't really stand you to have an exchange
I may respond but you're a guy who doesn't even understand the doctrine of sola scriptura and continually attack solo scriptura instead. You're not even willing to accurately learn what we believe and address our actual views so going back and forth with you on these issues seems fruitless. You have probably never conceded that you were incorrect about anything. I may though, we'll see.
What a mess here Keith. You have this horrible habit of sloppy argumentation mixed with childish accusations. Lets make a few things crystal clear. This chain of events HAPPENED: You made a video on St. Cyril, I responded, and after the video is nowhere to be found. I simply relayed a sequence. I cannot find that video.. do not just throw around accusations of lying. Next, I directly linked all of my sources.. I used something like TWO sentences from an enormous article and LINKED the article.
You on the other hand, relied in the complete form of TurretinFan's article. I said, "For more information".. thus, where some of the original information come from? ..
Now, I devoted a massive ONE HALF sentence of this video to Sola Scriptura-- I used this combo of words: [that doctrine is] most authoritatively taught by scripture alone, a perfectly accurate definition.
Now, that these *blatant red herrings are aside-- are you going to engage the substance of this video or not?
Thats fine. Not that we have access to the original video but there involved you bringing up St. Cyril's lectures. I NEVER SAID you "made a video on St. Cyril". I said you made a video and claimed x,y, z falsities about St. Cyril-- which you did, and then after I responded you took the video down (unless its still up?); that this should include the videos own comment section is obvious. Cease these childish, laughable accusations..["thats a lie!!!..liar!!"] ..
@Theologica37 Look at your comment 8 hours ago which says: "You made a video on St. Cyril." Now look at your comment 47 minutes where you say: "I NEVER SAID you "made a video on St. Cyril" You're a confused papist. If you want to honestly engage these issues and carefully try to understand my arguments I will deal with you in interchange. But if you make foolish straw men and dishonest distortions you will get picked apart in a harsh way. Your choice.
Oh wow. .That I said "on" might be misleading, yet is nothing more than an obvious sequence error: .. "You made a video, I responded on St. Cyril" I cannot believe you're up in arms about this. It is equivalent to me correcting your punctuation. You made a video, and made laughable argument. I responded to you in that video (namely its comment section) and you took the video down. That you think this involves drastic dishonesty and patent lies etc etc etc is hilarious. Grow up.
@Theologica37 Anyway, the honest person can see you tried to make it as though I was so refuted I removed my video on Cyril when that is a total lie. Another reason why I don't want to dialogue with you or your kind. But, I will go rounds with you on sola scriptura and show your ignorance if you want to take this further.
@Theologica37 Claiming "that this should include the videos own comment section is obvious" is totally inconsistent with numerous statements you made which I already screen captured so if you want to keep lying you will keep getting exposed and refuted. If if you are too proud and dishonest to admit you were wrong keep digging your own grave. Go ahead.
I do not agree with calvanism, and I do not agree with catholicism. I've never talked to you, Theologica37 but I like watching your vids. ive had a few run-ins with Keith. I told him that I was interested in apologetics and wanted to one day become a christian apologist to which he pretty much told me i cant because of my youtube screen name. Its funny, he was the one that kinda inspired me then tells me i cant.
While I agree that modern reformed ecclesiology is quite muddled, I do find it interesting that you, Theologica37, seem to place the Eastern Patriarchs on the same ecclesiastical status of primacy as the Roman Bishop, in this video.
Where did I do that? Just because the Bishop of Rome is a Patriarch, and there are say Four other Patriarchs, does not mean they are all authoritative equals.
@Theologica37 Whether you believe all patriarchs and bishops must be in communion with Peter's successor, you're still troubled with the fact that as Cyprian said, "Christ gave an EQUAL POWER to all his apostles". Again, before you respond telling me that the Fathers believed unity with the Petrine See is necessary in order to have ecclesiastical authority, remember that that has no bearing on the fact that the apostles do have equal authority. And thus, so do their successors have that power.
there is a difference between having "equal power" and "equal authority". The apostles did all, in a sense, have equal power because all the apostles had the power to do all the same things ie absolve sins, offer the mass, ordain priests, consecrate bishops, anoint the sick, etc. but this is not the same thing has having equal authority. Again i would need to see the quote in question
David, you're taking Cyprian out of context. Finish that sentence, and then the entire paragraph. The unity of the Apostles is sustained and punctuated by the one Petrine chair, and Peter's person. I have a video discussing this and many other Cyprianic related issues.
Whether all the patriarchs were "equal" with the Bishop of Rome or not, that would still would not prove the Reformed view of ecclesiology, as they believe that only scripture is their final infallible authority. Citing patristic sources that show the authority of patriarchs over the Church, such to the extent that they can dogmatically bind the faithful in ecumenical councils, is no way to vindicate the reformed view.
Right, I think this is more of a debate with Catholics and Orthodox. I don't see how the reformed view can use sources that are not compatible with their own view.
I had tried to make it clear in the video, this is a subject where Catholics, and the majority of the autocephalous churches (Anglican communion included!) will be in agreement about, because (at least on a regional level) this is a common belief held throughout the aforementioned.
"your kind" lol. Come on Keith.
TheIconodule 5 months ago
Keith, how bout just stick to the substance of the video? This back and forth about who said what about whatever video with who lied or who didn't to somehow validate ones own position against the "lair" is just childish. Stuff little kids do.
Childinfaith 5 months ago
@Childinfaith If I were to say that theologica37 removed a video which I refuted, as if he were shamed and embarrassed, when in all actuality that never happened, I doubt you would take such a relaxed position. You would probably tell me to admit the error since it would be wrong go around spreading false statements like that. But I guess since you agree with his position as a Catholic I can understand why double standards would be employed. No I will not ignore this.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
@KeithTruth
This is the last comment I'm going to allow on this shallow character assassination. I never acted "as if you were shamed, embarrassed". I refuted you on a video you made (whole time--on its comment section) and then after making a video of my own, this video was taken down. I very poorly spoke in a single comment which sparked your neurotically self-affirming assumptions to unheard of heights. No more will I allow this. I have not once intentionally distorted the events. Grow up.
Theologica37 5 months ago
Stated another way: to claim you actually meant it was either a video on Cyril or the comments in a video is easily refuted because if you truly believed I only made video comments, then you would not assert that I removed the video due to being refuted. Why? Because there would be no reason to remove a video unrelated to SS and Cyril only because of comments in the comment section. I would just remove the comments. This proves you weren't saying it was either a video on Cyril or comments on him
KeithTruth 5 months ago
(Contd 5)
"there would be no reason to remove a video unrelated to SS and Cyril"
This is your assumption, yes, and on it you've dozens of times accused me of lying. Let us make that abundantly clear. I would (obviously?) refer to that video on those terms because that's when you got frustrated, blocked me and removed the video. Thus, 'the video on Cyril' etc. I have not once intentionally distorted facts. This is all childish and I will no longer allow such comments. A humongous red herring.
Theologica37 5 months ago
(Contd 6)
All of your failed character assassinations are transparent-- and I'm more than willing to allow people to see these sly tactics. All of this henceforth aside, your latest video commits the same errors without correction, fails to even cite sources (a REAL candidate for deceit) and completely ignores all of the points I have made in my videos. Furthermore, the entire first video is based on eisegesis of me and your utter ignorance to Catholic teaching. You will be easily dealt with.
Theologica37 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Go ahead but try to be accurate or else your errors will be picked apart. I welcome your response.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
(Contd 7)
Keith YOUR OWN errors stand unchecked. You rely heavily on shotty sources and/or do not know how to properly relay a citation-- and you don't present them. That's deceitful. I'm going to have to spend time just correcting basic issues and thats before we get to the dozen or so logical fallacies you commit, and BLATANTLY false assertions you make. And to this other comment-- no you have not dealt with what I've said in that video, I showed how *SolA S. is flatly rejected by St. Cyril.
Theologica37 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Do your best because I have answers to your citations of Lecture 18. I already said I would be building a fresh case, then if you want to respond to my actual position you can make fresh arguments and we can start a good discussion. So make your arguments now and I will address them. Your prior video is obsolete in light of you now knowing what SS is and is not. Take care.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
(Contd 8)
"video is obsolete in light of you now knowing what SS is and is not. " That doesn't follow even if your false assumption were true, I was comparatively working with the type definition you relayed. I presented texts which show that St. Cyril did not believe that Scripture was the only infallible rule of the Faith or the only final determining criterion of doctrine. You ignored them and in empty rhetoric called the texts irrelevant. They apply to SolA scriptura, and destroy your case.
Theologica37 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Well when you respond I will address your citations and prove that 1.) they don't refute SS since we don't believe Scripture is the only rule of faith (which was your initial false argument) and 2.) they do not show the Church has an intrinsic authority apart from the Scriptures. They don't even begin to show that and so release your response and I will prove it in the rejoinder. I'll be away until Tuesday or Wednesday so feel free to take your time and not make more errors.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
(Contd 9)
"take your time and not make more errors."
I wish I could have given you the same advice before you made these videos. And no Keith, in context and by easily demonstrable references we were approaching the same issue; St. Cyril a) NEVER affirmed it, b) in many ways explicitly, implicitly rejects it. With regard to b) you have continually employed this tactic of passivity and then thinking you get to say things like 'I want x,y,z answered'; No, I'm not going to let you play these games.
Theologica37 5 months ago
Comment removed
KeithTruth 5 months ago
My response to you is done.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
@ConfusedKarl
How could that video "change you"? It had to do with handshaking! Look, there have been popes who have done terrible things but none of them have tried to touch the faith like John XXIII-B16 have. but alas, i do not want to hijack theo's video
OneTrueChurch 5 months ago
@OneTrueChurch
And I would appreciate it if this convo does not go any further. We have very different views on this issue and this is not the place. I appreciate your understanding and recognition of this.
Theologica37 5 months ago
You said I made a video about Cyril affirming sola scriptura and then took it down? No that's a lie. In a video about a few new books I got there was an exchange in the comments were I made that assertion to another Catholic. Then you addressed my comments. So if you're not a liar remove that lie. Second, you copy and pasted from the vatican website in this video without giving credit to the website - all you say is "for further reading check out.." I can't really stand you to have an exchange
KeithTruth 5 months ago
I may respond but you're a guy who doesn't even understand the doctrine of sola scriptura and continually attack solo scriptura instead. You're not even willing to accurately learn what we believe and address our actual views so going back and forth with you on these issues seems fruitless. You have probably never conceded that you were incorrect about anything. I may though, we'll see.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
What a mess here Keith. You have this horrible habit of sloppy argumentation mixed with childish accusations. Lets make a few things crystal clear. This chain of events HAPPENED: You made a video on St. Cyril, I responded, and after the video is nowhere to be found. I simply relayed a sequence. I cannot find that video.. do not just throw around accusations of lying. Next, I directly linked all of my sources.. I used something like TWO sentences from an enormous article and LINKED the article.
Theologica37 5 months ago
(Contd 2)
You on the other hand, relied in the complete form of TurretinFan's article. I said, "For more information".. thus, where some of the original information come from? ..
Now, I devoted a massive ONE HALF sentence of this video to Sola Scriptura-- I used this combo of words: [that doctrine is] most authoritatively taught by scripture alone, a perfectly accurate definition.
Now, that these *blatant red herrings are aside-- are you going to engage the substance of this video or not?
Theologica37 5 months ago
@Theologica37 I'll respond in a video.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
(Contd 3)
Thats fine. Not that we have access to the original video but there involved you bringing up St. Cyril's lectures. I NEVER SAID you "made a video on St. Cyril". I said you made a video and claimed x,y, z falsities about St. Cyril-- which you did, and then after I responded you took the video down (unless its still up?); that this should include the videos own comment section is obvious. Cease these childish, laughable accusations..["thats a lie!!!..liar!!"] ..
..
Oh, please..
Theologica37 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Look at your comment 8 hours ago which says: "You made a video on St. Cyril." Now look at your comment 47 minutes where you say: "I NEVER SAID you "made a video on St. Cyril" You're a confused papist. If you want to honestly engage these issues and carefully try to understand my arguments I will deal with you in interchange. But if you make foolish straw men and dishonest distortions you will get picked apart in a harsh way. Your choice.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
(Contd 4)
Oh wow. .That I said "on" might be misleading, yet is nothing more than an obvious sequence error: .. "You made a video, I responded on St. Cyril" I cannot believe you're up in arms about this. It is equivalent to me correcting your punctuation. You made a video, and made laughable argument. I responded to you in that video (namely its comment section) and you took the video down. That you think this involves drastic dishonesty and patent lies etc etc etc is hilarious. Grow up.
Theologica37 5 months ago
Comment removed
KeithTruth 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Anyway, the honest person can see you tried to make it as though I was so refuted I removed my video on Cyril when that is a total lie. Another reason why I don't want to dialogue with you or your kind. But, I will go rounds with you on sola scriptura and show your ignorance if you want to take this further.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Claiming "that this should include the videos own comment section is obvious" is totally inconsistent with numerous statements you made which I already screen captured so if you want to keep lying you will keep getting exposed and refuted. If if you are too proud and dishonest to admit you were wrong keep digging your own grave. Go ahead.
KeithTruth 5 months ago
Comment removed
KeithTruth 5 months ago
I do not agree with calvanism, and I do not agree with catholicism. I've never talked to you, Theologica37 but I like watching your vids. ive had a few run-ins with Keith. I told him that I was interested in apologetics and wanted to one day become a christian apologist to which he pretty much told me i cant because of my youtube screen name. Its funny, he was the one that kinda inspired me then tells me i cant.
but this was a long time ago...
axemurderah17 5 months ago
@ConfusedKarl
yea thats right keith commented on one of my vids, I refuted his comment so he blocked me on his channel. and yes im still a sedevacantist
OneTrueChurch 5 months ago
While I agree that modern reformed ecclesiology is quite muddled, I do find it interesting that you, Theologica37, seem to place the Eastern Patriarchs on the same ecclesiastical status of primacy as the Roman Bishop, in this video.
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
Where did I do that? Just because the Bishop of Rome is a Patriarch, and there are say Four other Patriarchs, does not mean they are all authoritative equals.
Theologica37 5 months ago
@Theologica37 Whether you believe all patriarchs and bishops must be in communion with Peter's successor, you're still troubled with the fact that as Cyprian said, "Christ gave an EQUAL POWER to all his apostles". Again, before you respond telling me that the Fathers believed unity with the Petrine See is necessary in order to have ecclesiastical authority, remember that that has no bearing on the fact that the apostles do have equal authority. And thus, so do their successors have that power.
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
there is a difference between having "equal power" and "equal authority". The apostles did all, in a sense, have equal power because all the apostles had the power to do all the same things ie absolve sins, offer the mass, ordain priests, consecrate bishops, anoint the sick, etc. but this is not the same thing has having equal authority. Again i would need to see the quote in question
OneTrueChurch 5 months ago
@FunkyTheist
David, you're taking Cyprian out of context. Finish that sentence, and then the entire paragraph. The unity of the Apostles is sustained and punctuated by the one Petrine chair, and Peter's person. I have a video discussing this and many other Cyprianic related issues.
Theologica37 5 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
Whether all the patriarchs were "equal" with the Bishop of Rome or not, that would still would not prove the Reformed view of ecclesiology, as they believe that only scripture is their final infallible authority. Citing patristic sources that show the authority of patriarchs over the Church, such to the extent that they can dogmatically bind the faithful in ecumenical councils, is no way to vindicate the reformed view.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine Well, I don't hold to reformed ecclesiology or sola scriptura.
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
Right, I think this is more of a debate with Catholics and Orthodox. I don't see how the reformed view can use sources that are not compatible with their own view.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine well Anglicans hold to a different view than reformed, catholic, and orthodox.
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
I had tried to make it clear in the video, this is a subject where Catholics, and the majority of the autocephalous churches (Anglican communion included!) will be in agreement about, because (at least on a regional level) this is a common belief held throughout the aforementioned.
Theologica37 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
Nice music, btw, sounds like an underground or home recording. You play?
nymphrenic 5 months ago
He blocked me too for a comment i made on my own channel lol
OneTrueChurch 5 months ago
@OneTrueChurch Weird, how could he block you from commenting on your own channel?
nymphrenic 5 months ago
Kieth"truth" blocked me from his channel a few months back because I got offended over his blatant and bigoted anti-catholicism.
nymphrenic 5 months ago