4:46 Bringing up someone's moral failings, when they aren't directed at you or affect the dispute, is an unnecessarily low blow. Especially when you're trying to focus on the arguments.
Jay dyer when debating Muslims: " You can't quote some random Bible scholars and say this proves your view-thats a fallacy!" Also Jay when there's a random footnote that supports his view:
There are a number of instances where I have seen him pull this...he has an incredible theological intuition like I have never seen in anyone else (except, perhaps, John of St. Thomas)
I think Jay Dyer is going to have a live stream discussing your debate. I would love to see more against his fallacies. He is the perfect example of someone who has read a lot, knows a lot but doesn’t understand a lot. He has knowledge but he lacks understanding and therefore wisdom. He’s dangerous because he is an example of the truth that a little knowledge without wisdom is very dangerous. He misleads many souls.
As an Orthodox Christian, I wanted to say how I appreciate how you conduct yourself, in general! You’re the type of guy I’d get a beer with and talk theology lol Did you read all of Siecienski’s paper on the Letter to Marinus that you reference in this video? I felt he addressed some of the contentions between you and David during the debate that David seemed to struggle a little more in responding to. When you engage in topics of debate that are heavy in terminological nuance, have you prayerfully considered the possibility that you approach the earlier fathers’ writings through the lens of Aquinas and his inheritance (which is reasonable for a faithful RC), rather than approaching the earlier Fathers without such a “flavor”? I can imagine that being difficult for someone who admires Aquinas so much, I am just wondering if you considered that! Thanks for your videos.
Hey, Branson is my philosophy professor and he’s a really charitable guy as far as I know. If you do debate him, it wouldn’t be a whole lot of drama, and I’d like to see how he engages with Catholic arguments.
@Boulanger948 He’s Orthodox. He’s focused on metaphysics, philosophy of religion, etc. The main reason I suggest him is because he doesn’t get rude or toxic when he’s questioned or pressed on issues.
@ Militant Thomas: In what video(s) do you address yourself to Perry Robinson as mentioned toward the end of your remarks here? Searched your videos, did not find anything. The instant video was very good, but for certain remarks near the beginning which, while vague, were unnecessary, and if anything detracted from the force of your presentation, verging on if not in fact detrahere, as per the definition in the first sentence of the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on that subject. More dyerish than Wagnerian there, I daresay. Cut that part, would be my suggestion; it doesn't advance your argument.
You do a great harm to the Christian Faith and offense to God by defending the filoque. I know that sounds ignorant to state so assertively. But God will vindicate in the end. Roman Catholics should fear and repent of this heresy. Peace to all, with love, from a fellow sinner, in Christ.
@@planteruines5619 Peace to you again brother. I'm not sure what you mean.. How about this? :) I will embrace your Filioque, on one condition: if you can reason with me why we must believe it in order to be saved. Without losing the fruit of the Spirit "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." Galatians 5:22-23
@@IonniasDeVito peace to you brother , well , as for the Filioque i would say that John 16 , the first verses about the Spirit receiving knowledge from the Son is pretty clear , the energetic procession defense has problems because of the EED and composition, it also makes the temporal procession more fitting because God reveals himself through the temporal sending instead of being hidden for no reason. Also this would mean that every person has a relation to the other persons and thus a greater link and greater love
Well...Craig said I was right in the pinned comment on his video.
@@computationaltheist7267?
Pretty admirable
He removed the video @@computationaltheist7267
he deleted his video lol@@computationaltheist7267
4:46 Bringing up someone's moral failings, when they aren't directed at you or affect the dispute, is an unnecessarily low blow. Especially when you're trying to focus on the arguments.
I just watched a video from Truglia and he said that your objections were “surface level.” 💀
Jay dyer when debating Muslims: " You can't quote some random Bible scholars and say this proves your view-thats a fallacy!"
Also Jay when there's a random footnote that supports his view:
Incredible that St. Thomas anticipated St. Basil's reasoning, even though a complete translation was not available to him.
There are a number of instances where I have seen him pull this...he has an incredible theological intuition like I have never seen in anyone else (except, perhaps, John of St. Thomas)
@@MilitantThomist They don't call him the "angelic doctor" for nothin'. Clearly, he was graced with something of an "angelic intellect." 😉
The response was so good, you got him to delete the video
🤣
EO (jay and Craig) never lose an argument it’s the magic of the internet
tbh thats admirable from Craig, when you are wrong you are wrong
I think Jay Dyer is going to have a live stream discussing your debate.
I would love to see more against his fallacies. He is the perfect example of someone who has read a lot, knows a lot but doesn’t understand a lot.
He has knowledge but he lacks understanding and therefore wisdom.
He’s dangerous because he is an example of the truth that a little knowledge without wisdom is very dangerous. He misleads many souls.
Truglia hoisted by own petard!😂
As an Orthodox Christian, I wanted to say how I appreciate how you conduct yourself, in general! You’re the type of guy I’d get a beer with and talk theology lol
Did you read all of Siecienski’s paper on the Letter to Marinus that you reference in this video? I felt he addressed some of the contentions between you and David during the debate that David seemed to struggle a little more in responding to.
When you engage in topics of debate that are heavy in terminological nuance, have you prayerfully considered the possibility that you approach the earlier fathers’ writings through the lens of Aquinas and his inheritance (which is reasonable for a faithful RC), rather than approaching the earlier Fathers without such a “flavor”? I can imagine that being difficult for someone who admires Aquinas so much, I am just wondering if you considered that!
Thanks for your videos.
24:38
I'm in that "some" who are pretty happy about the 10 minutes research.
Hey, Branson is my philosophy professor and he’s a really charitable guy as far as I know. If you do debate him, it wouldn’t be a whole lot of drama, and I’d like to see how he engages with Catholic arguments.
@Boulanger948
He’s Orthodox. He’s focused on metaphysics, philosophy of religion, etc. The main reason I suggest him is because he doesn’t get rude or toxic when he’s questioned or pressed on issues.
Bon appetite 3:40, but it’s Wednesday brother, just wanted to remind you of the days for next time 😊
Can you link to the actual debate. Thanks 👍
Good haircut, good video! God bless!
@ Militant Thomas: In what video(s) do you address yourself to Perry Robinson as mentioned toward the end of your remarks here? Searched your videos, did not find anything. The instant video was very good, but for certain remarks near the beginning which, while vague, were unnecessary, and if anything detracted from the force of your presentation, verging on if not in fact detrahere, as per the definition in the first sentence of the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on that subject. More dyerish than Wagnerian there, I daresay. Cut that part, would be my suggestion; it doesn't advance your argument.
I saw it on twitter. Not sure if it's on video.
So is Fr. Kappes agreeing with truglia in this exchange?
Fr. Kappes says Trent Horn is wrong for thinking Jerome translated Genesis 3:15 with "She".
Excellent
so filioque is more strong argumen againt ortodox than papacy. is it true?
The canon of scripture is also a strong argument against Eastern Orthodoxy
@@MajorasTime how?
@@koppite9600Read Albretch’s new book on this
@@koppite9600 th-cam.com/video/MUQM2szbAVw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-QnG4GqNvZ1ZNwXh
is easier to prove, dont know if more "strong"
You do a great harm to the Christian Faith and offense to God by defending the filoque. I know that sounds ignorant to state so assertively. But God will vindicate in the end. Roman Catholics should fear and repent of this heresy. Peace to all, with love, from a fellow sinner, in Christ.
and what if God is a filioquist ?
@@planteruines5619 Peace to you brother. If He was you wouldn't be asking this question.
@@IonniasDeVito are you saying that , because i used a certain litterature style i am false ? isn't that a fallacy ?
@@planteruines5619 Peace to you again brother. I'm not sure what you mean.. How about this? :) I will embrace your Filioque, on one condition:
if you can reason with me why we must believe it in order to be saved. Without losing the fruit of the Spirit "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." Galatians 5:22-23
@@IonniasDeVito peace to you brother , well , as for the Filioque i would say that John 16 , the first verses about the Spirit receiving knowledge from the Son is pretty clear , the energetic procession defense has problems because of the EED and composition, it also makes the temporal procession more fitting because God reveals himself through the temporal sending instead of being hidden for no reason. Also this would mean that every person has a relation to the other persons and thus a greater link and greater love
Bro you are killing it went come to the filioque, you and dwong are to strong for the Orthodox 💪
Where can I find this debate?
Sam Shamoun's TH-cam channel, IIRC
Samounian
Craig Foolio is a real - Mother Lover