Yeah, I've had it.

I'm sorry, I.

I've had it.

What?

What.

What have you had it with you?

Why?

Because I think you're off the wall.

You know, you're.

You're citing all these things and claiming.

Them to be facts that are not facts.

Well, actually, here's the difference.

You.

You made a whole bunch of claims that you just made claims over and over.

I told you where you could go.

You can go to the CDC, you can go to.

You can go to Dr.

Fauci and go back and listen and see the things that we said.

But it's off the wall because it's not part of your nar.

Like, are you looking for truth?

Or.

Narrative becomes the thing, and you're.

You're now upset just because we said something that didn't support the narrative.

No, that's not it at all.

Then what is?

I'm done.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

We are live Apologetics Live here to answer your most challenging questions that you have about God and the Bible.

We are here to answer any question that you have about God in the Bible, and we can do that here.

If you doubt that, just go to apologeticslive.com scroll down till you see where to participate.

It's the little duck icon, the streamyard icon.

You can click that.

Join us.

Ask me your most challenging question.

Just remember, one thing I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

Answer.

Tonight, our topic will be, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible?

Maybe some of you remember, some weeks back, we had someone toward the end of our show come in.

His name was Sebastian.

We.

He was making a case for Mary being the Ark of the Covenant.

We got into a kind of a lengthy discussion.

We went over time and got into a lengthy discussion of the canon of scripture and how we got it.

Sebastian agreed to come back so that we could give him more time and have a lengthier discussion session.

So he will be joining shortly and I should introduce myself in the show.

That would be good.

My name is Andrew Rapport.

I am the host of Apologetics Live.

It's a ministry of striving for eternity.

If you want to find out more about us, go to strivingforeeternity.org that is strivingforeeternity.org I do encourage folks to do two things.

One, I encourage you to watch this live because we have a.

Well, we have a very active chat group on YouTube that watch us Live.

I know there's people that chat on Facebook as well, but we don't get to see that during the show.

Just the way Facebook works.

But a lot of people are active in the chat and so if you want to go to the YouTube channel for striving for Eternity, if you go to apologetics live.com that also has a link for you to watch the show from YouTube you can just click from there to the YouTube link to get to YouTube and so encourage you to do that if you want to chat.

Also I want to encourage you guys to share this out to others, especially if you find some value in it.

I have been amiss in reading reviews well because I forgot that we to I had a service that would check all the reviews and I didn't.

I had son not signed up for Apologetics Live so I wasn't getting the reviews.

So we got some recent reviews and then I went back and saw some old ones that I figured hey, that'd be fun to to read.

So the most recent one that I have not read on the show is a five star review from someone named Leatherneck7476 say brilliant, brilliantly done.

Good God has gifted this group.

I'm not sure which episode that was with but that was on September 2nd so would have been one the, the one that goes back away is I forgot about this.

This was from the end of May and it I always find this interesting because I was able to determine that I think it's the same person leaving the same review, a one star review and then they go in with a different a different name to do.

But one is a one star review, unloving, sickening behavior towards others.

And he says I pray Andrew and his co host repent of the way they treat others who disagree with them, especially the brethren.

This podcast and others like it are causing division in Christchurch.

I I really found that interesting because this is the guy if you go back six months or so, this was a guy that believed disagreed with what John MacArthur said about the difference between the mind and the brain with mental health.

And this guy was totally misrepresenting what John MacArthur had said.

And we got into a whole discussion of different what is a disease things like this.

And we actually, if you remember that one, this is the one where we had actually read Aaron Brewster read from the DMS5 manual that defines what a disease is on ADHD and add.

And if you remember the guy that came in argued that the DMS5, the actual manual on defining what diseases are is not an expert witness.

He was the expert witness with no degree, no.

No background in science and didn't like that we pointed that out.

That was.

And it is kind of funny.

He.

He had posted that.

It is interesting because one of the things that's very interesting I find with this show is the fact that when you look at the reviews, we have the.

The overwhelming number of them.

Talk about the fact that we are very polite to guests.

In fact, as we'll have tonight, I'll do my same, you know, disclaimer that I've put before, especially I did it just last week when we had Leighton Flowers on.

I'll give you an update with that in a moment as well.

But we allow folks like Layton and Sebastian to have time to talk.

So the fact that I don't answer everything that I may disagree with with a guest does not mean that there was no argument that could be made as, as my show here, the purpose is to do apologetics, to teach apologetics.

That's what we do here.

And so being that it's my show, if there's a guest like Leighton Flowers or Sebastian or anyone else, we just played a clip from Godless Grandma who was on here at the beginning of the show.

And I could do an entire show, as we did, with Godless Grandma responding to some of the things she said.

I could do that with Leighton and I could do that with Sebastian here, who's into today because it's my show.

So if I let someone talk, it's because I want to respect the guest.

So I say that because, well, there's a lot of people that just get upset when I let guests actually speak and they feel like, well, you got to cut them off and address everything that they say wrong.

Well, I'm not always looking to do that.

There's things Leighton said that I realized afterwards when I was re.

Listening.

Yeah, I could have.

I could have responded to that.

I couldn't respond to that.

Well, I will be responding to that maybe because Leighton will have me on his program.

We're trying to set up a date.

He's traveling right now.

So I will go on his Soteriology 101.

And I will.

As he is teaching Soteriology 101, I will go on there and teach Soteriology.

Well, 201, 301, 401 and 501.

If you've never been to college and you don't get the 101s, basically 101s are entry level classes and then your sophomore classes are 201s, they start at, you know, 200s.

And then, you know, Junior, your third year is 301s.

Fourth year, 401s advanced is 501s.

So that's kind of the way that.

So when he says he's teaching Soteriology 101, we'll teach him more advanced soteriology, the doctrine of salvation.

So.

And.

And I don't know.

I'll let the audience.

I just knocked this.

I just knocked the mic.

So I'm fix this.

I.

I'll let the ask the folks in the audience.

I don't know.

For those of you.

I know some of you do watch Leighton.

I, I don't typically follow him, but if I'm curious, anyone out there, if he did a response video to our apologetics live, because Leighton usually does that.

He'll do response videos that are quite long.

So I'm just gonna.

I'm just gonna say that we were supposed to be joined by Ed Romine.

He was in last week.

Ed is.

Is said he was going to come because he.

He didn't have things at church.

And then all of a sudden at.

Let's see, he usually.

And by the way, Ed usually calls me just before we go live just to say hi.

And he calls me during the show to see if I will put him on.

See, you know, to just add him in somehow or just to see if I'll answer the phone.

And doesn't matter because my phone shuts off during the show.

But Ed said I won't be.

I won't be able to make it.

I have an evangelism opportunity come up for tonight, so he won't be here.

I told him he broke my heart.

But you can.

You could pray for his evangelism opportunity.

Drew is not here and therefore I.

It makes it harder for me to follow all of the comments as they go rapid fire.

So those that are watching, watching live, I will ask you in the chat if you have a specific question for either myself or Sebastian.

Just put in all caps question colon and then ask your question.

That will make it at least a little bit easier for me to see that you.

You have a question that you want asked on the show.

And I had a board member that told me I don't mention this enough.

So I should say if you want to guarantee a question gets asked if you're on YouTube, we can do.

You can do super chats that highlights it and keeps it frozen up top for me so that I definitely see that question.

And we read those.

It's a way of both supporting the ministry and making sure that we get to your question.

Give a shout out to my good friend at Dead Man Walking podcast.

He says, my man, what's up, Andrew?

Great subject tonight, Dead Man Walking is Greg Moore, a great podcast.

If you're not listening to that one, may I encourage you to go to your podcast app and follow that one?

He's also on YouTube.

So good, brother.

Great stuff.

I do like a lot of what he has.

Actually, I'm probably going to reach out to one of his recent guests to have him come on my Rap Report podcast and talk about being debanked because Christians get, well, conservatives get debanked.

So I'm trying to figure out, Mr.

Tracy said, is Andrew under the weather?

Not that I know of.

Not sure why you think I'm under the weather.

So, Jess, Jesse said, good show with Layton.

I was extremely distracted in the comments, though.

See, that's the thing, Jesse.

That's why we have the, the podcast.

So you can always go back and listen as well, because I, I'm just telling you, folks, if you're not in the chat, you're missing out.

Let me bring Sebastian in.

And as I do that, folks, I want to remind you to please share this on your different social media so that others can join and watch live.

So, Sebastian, how are you this evening?

Hey, I'm well.

How are you?

Good, good, good.

So before we started the show, you and I started talking about something completely unrelated to Roman Catholicism and the, and the topic tonight.

And so I figured, hey, let's, if, if it'd be okay, let's talk about the dangers of a keto diet, because that's totally related to Roman Catholicism or not.

But, but it is something that you, you and I were talking.

There's some.

And I said, hey, it would be good.

I.

For folks who are regular here at Apologetics Live, we used to have one of our older co hosts who is very into the keto diet.

I've always been in favor of a modified keto diet, but I'm not a big fan of a full keto diet because it does damage to the liver and different things.

And you actually had been trying to keep very strict to a keto diet and it affected you.

Yeah, I was on the keto diet for probably around three years in my very, very early 20s, and I went to the very extreme of cutting nearly all carbohydrates out completely for a very long time.

And.

And what was the damage?

Yeah, what damage did that do to your body?

Okay.

So the, basically the lack of soluble fiber1 caused the toxins that I was consuming from all the animal products to accumulate in my liver.

And soluble fiber is needed to latch on to fat soluble toxins that are in the bile and the liver produces bile.

And it's basically the liver's poop in a way.

And so when you consume soluble fiber, not only does this stimulate the liver to produce bile and to dump it into your gut, but now this soluble fiber will latch on to the bile, which is where all the toxins are, and it'll carry it out through the entire digestive tract until you excrete it.

However, when I was on the keto diet, I wasn't really eating a whole lot of soluble fiber.

I was really just eating the fats and the meats.

And so nowadays you see everyone on the keto or on the carnivore diet, they're not eating enough soluble fiber, and that's one problem.

So they're going to start getting liver problems.

All the vitamin A.

Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin.

You do need vitamin A.

However, it will accumulate in your liver.

And this isn't anything that's new.

I'm not saying anything new.

This is well established fat soluble vitamins accumulate in the liver, especially vitamin A.

And so people who are on the carnivore diet and you see people doing crazy things like eating liver and organ meats all the time, which isn't bad, but they're eating it all the time and they're making it a staple in their diet, and then they're eating a bunch of fats.

And without the soluble fiber to feed the gut bacteria, the fats are going into their stomach and they're basically just.

Fat has a sort of antimicrobial property.

So if you continue to eat it without supporting your gut mite, without supporting your biome, your gut biome, it'll essentially just act as an antibiotic in your gut.

And that's pretty much what happened in my gut.

On top of that, the lack of carbohydrates.

Your brain needs carbohydrates.

And so when you're not supplying your brain with, with glucose from the diet, it's going to start catabolizing its own body tissue to produce carbohydrates which are necessary to feed your brain.

And this is, this requires something called adrenaline.

So people at the end of a carnivore keto diet, they might experience or have problems with their adrenaline.

They may have adrenal fatigue or some sort of dysregulation where a small event will cause your adrenals to basically go hyperactive.

And that was one thing that happened to me during the end, was tiny events would overstimulate and overstimulate my adrenal glands.

And so I remember sitting in a movie theater with a girl that I was dating at the time.

And the music in the movie theater is very loud and it's very rumbling, and it kind of hits you in your chest, and it's very stimulating.

I remember being on the border of a panic attack in the movie theater because my heart was just beating out of my chest and it was my adrenals.

And I was thinking to myself, what is going on here?

And in retrospect, I know now that my dietary practices of restricting carbohydrates so much on top of the other, on top of my lifestyle, I was very active as well.

So not only was I restricting carbs from my diet, but I was actively depleting carbs through exercise.

Basically, all this together was leading to an adrenaline crisis.

And so my advice to people who are following the keto and carnivore diet is to be cautious and to maybe reintroduce carbs periodically or cyclically.

And most importantly, to consume soluble fiber, whether that be in the form of beans or vegetables or maybe even something like a psyllium husk fiber supplement.

You need the constant stream of soluble fiber to clean out your liver and to support healthy liver function.

And all these hormones like adrenaline, they get stored in the liver.

People don't realize that, and it's hugely important.

Like, excess adrenaline won't actually lead your body until it's been completely excreted via the soluble fiber.

And so if you're on the keto or carnivore diet and you're not consuming soluble fiber, you're just going to become a toxic wasteland for everything.

All the toxins that you consume from your diet.

Yeah, that's the thing.

I mean, someone in the chat put up, oh, it's like the old Atkins diet.

Yeah, there's all these different fads with the diets, and they will often work at the beginning, but a lot of them get imbalanced.

And that's, that's the thing.

It's, it's.

There's a lot of different ways to, to be healthy.

I mean, look, I'm.

I go extremes, right?

I, I go from a sauna to a, to a cold plunge.

I cold plunge almost every morning.

If I'm not, if I don't do a cold plunge, I'M in a cold, I take a cold shower.

People think that's extreme, but hey, so I guess people think I'm sick.

Dead Man Walking said that my voice sounds a little scratchy, that it's going around.

Well, I don't, I feel okay.

Don't, don't hear it in my own voice.

Another podcaster, Parker Brown, says I shared.

He's me referring to sharing this, this episode or this live stream.

He said, appreciate your friendship, brother.

Love what you do.

Parker Brown is from the Watch well podcast.

Another podcast if you like movies, that would be a podcast to go and check out is the Watch well podcast.

Parker Brown's a good brother.

So let's get into our discussion.

Sebastian for folks, give, give folks a little bit of your background, your, your, your title.

If I, if I take the banner off here, the, the banner that you've, the sub, the heading you've given yourself is traditional Roman Catholic.

So explain what you mean by that and a little bit about yourself.

So I am a traditional Roman Catholic.

That means that one, I'm a Catholic.

This means that I accept that there has been a tradition of 2000 years of practiced Christianity that has been organized and unified and that has endured to this day.

And I am a Roman Catholic, which means that I accept the, the papacy.

It means that I acknowledge Rome to be the center of authority within the church.

And this is something that's been recognized since the very beginning.

That's something else I suppose we could talk about.

And then I'm traditional because I, I have to add traditional because nowadays people call themselves Catholic, but they accept the, the, the changes that are being made by the people who occupy the Vatican.

And so I suppose I could also mention that I'm a state of cantist, which, it comes from the Latin word sede vacante, which means sere, means seat vacante means vacant means I see the, the chair of Peters being vacant.

And that's because the person who's occupying it, who calls himself a pope, isn't actually the Pope, but he's an anti Pope.

And so that's why I have to say that I'm traditional, which means that I accept the dogmas that state that heretic cannot be a pope.

And Francis and all the other Vatican 2 claimants are all heretics and thus anti popes.

So I'm a traditional Roman Catholic.

Okay, so you reject Vatican two.

That's right.

Okay.

And I assume that.

And so what I want to do is, I want to get your reaction is I want to play a clip this is from Ben Shapiro.

And the gentleman he has on, I forgot his name now, is Bishop, Bishop Baron.

You already know who it is.

So I want to play this clip and get your reaction.

The sort of countervailing effect of that is that you've seen this and this.

This occurs in the Jewish community as well as in the Catholic and the Protestant community as well.

Is that in a sort of rebellion against sort of the watercolor version of the religion, you do see people, you know, embracing a version that is, you know, so sort of reactionary to that, that it moves beyond the boundaries in the other direction.

So in terms of Catholicism, you do see a wing of Catholicism now that is attempting to, for example, wholesale reject Vatican ii.

Right.

For example.

What do you make of that?

No, and that's the problem.

So as I.

I've been a longtime critic of Catholic progressivism.

I'm also a critic of what we call kind of the more radical traditionalism within Catholicism.

And that's one of the marks, you're quite right.

I would say a disdain for the Pope.

And you see that in some Catholic circles, I mean, almost a disrespect toward the Pope, but even more importantly is the rejection of an ecumenical council.

You can't do that and be a Catholic.

It's as simple as that.

I mean, that to us is the highest doctrinal authority there is as a council.

If you say, well, I don't like Vatican ii, well, then how about Vatican I?

How about Trent?

How about Nicaea?

How about Chalcedon?

Can I pick and choose which councils I like?

I've told some of the radical traditionalist Catholics, you become really a Protestant at that point, you've given up on the authority of the Church.

So that's the problem.

Yeah, you can move this thing in that direction.

See, one of my great heroes, of course, is John Paul ii.

Everything we've been talking about, he understood and believed and propagated.

And he was a great student of philosophy and loved St.

Thomas Aquinas and the sciences and cultural engagement.

He didn't want to sort of ghettoize Catholicism or crouching defensively behind walls.

He didn't want that.

He wanted a boldly confident Catholicism that goes out to meet the world based on Logos.

That's what Ratzinger again saw is if we're the religion of Logos, that means we can meet any scientist, we can meet any philosopher, we can meet any representative of the culture.

So it's not a defensive, fearful, ghettoized Catholicism.

That, to me would be the rad trad side of it at its worst.

So I don't want that.

I don't want Catholic progressivism.

I want what we've been talking about.

That's the trajectory that I want to stay on.

Okay.

So I'd be curious.

You know, he's saying that your view, the view that you hold to is something that would be, you know, as he said, you can't be Catholic and reject Vatican too.

I mean, he even said that you'd be a Protestant, which was funny because before.

Before it got to that point.

This is Tom Shepard from even.

Even if.

More.

He said.

So he was referring to you when you were describing that you reject the.

The Pope.

He said so modern day Martin Luther.

So even Tom Shepard is.

Is indirectly maybe agreeing that you sound Protestant.

Yeah.

Well, that's rich coming from Bishop Barron because he pretty much applauded the selection of pro LGBTQ Wilton Gregory to archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

so he says he doesn't want to become like a progressive, but he's clearly someone who endorses lgbtq.

And if you're.

Even if you're someone who identifies as a Christian and you're a Protestant and I don't regard you as a Christian, even I can see that.

Or even you, rather can see that this is an abomination.

He's endorsing the LGBTQ community.

The second thing I'll mention is that it's rich that he accuses us of being like Protestants when we're actually the ones who are upholding traditional Catholic dogma, and he's the one who rejects it.

And so it's actually not a coincidence that he's talking to Ben Shapiro, of all people, who's a Jew, because this sort of interfaith dialogue is something that only start to occur after Vatican 2.

And actually there's an interview with a Yemenis spy who used to work with a Jewish group.

And their main mission was to introduce.

This is in the.

In the 1980s, was to promote interfaith dialogue with the Jewish community.

And there was never interfaith dialogue.

There was only debate and conversion.

There was never.

There was never this sort of ecumenicism or this false ecumenicism where all religions are true.

And Bishop Barron has even has even said at one point that hell might be empty.

Is hell empty, dude?

Does any Christian.

Does anyone who identifies as a Christian actually believe that hell is empty?

And that's obviously horrible.

That's a horrible way to.

That's.

That's completely false and unbiblical.

The Bible clearly shows that there are many People who go to hell and that the path to holiness is narrow and the path to destruction is broad.

So, yeah, he's a heretic.

He's not a Catholic and he's not someone who should be taken seriously.

The fact that he appeared on Ben Shapiro show.

I mean, what is the Daily Wire?

It's basically just a propaganda outlet at its best.

It's, it's basically pro Israel propaganda that's just found its, that's wedged its way into American society and now they're saying.

Not now.

They're trying to ally with the Christian community by saying, oh, look there, we're all for Judeo Christian values.

Right.

As if Jews don't completely reject Christ.

So it's just a complete.

He's a heretic and he's just an evil person.

So he's not a Catholic by any stretch.

He probably doesn't know anything about what the Church actually teaches.

So he's a bishop and he doesn't know what the Church teaches.

So do you, do you have any religious study background?

He's lost all jurisdiction by being a heretic.

A heretic can't have any jurisdiction.

He's, he's basically an imposter.

But he says you're the heretic.

By.

And, and I mean he's, he's at least keeping with the, the teachings of the Church.

No.

So you don't believe that the councils are authoritative?

I do, but he's the one who doesn't.

That, that's the sleight of hand that's being at play here, is that I'm the one who upholds the traditional dogma.

So, so you, you uphold Trent too, right?

Yeah.

Everything up until Vatican 2.

But here, I'll tell you.

So, so, but, but sure.

You don't accept Vatican ii.

I said Trent too.

I meant Vatican what, what, what?

So, okay, what specific heresy did that?

Because that's a, that's a council.

So if the council's, you know, I'm asking this because it's not a false council.

As someone who's not Catholic.

Right.

I, my understanding of Catholicism is from reading Catholic history and documents and, you know, the councils.

So, and this is, this is going to be a core part of our discussion, I think later when we talk about the Bible, what then defines.

So let's start specifically with Vatican 2.

You're saying it's heresy.

What made that council heresy?

Okay, so I'll give you an example.

There's a portion in Vatican 2 called Lumen Gentium.

This is basically considered the dogmatic Constitution on the church in Vatican 2.

This is Vatican 2's constitution on the church.

And in Lumen Gentium 16, we have this quote.

But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator.

And among these, the Muslims are first.

They profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and along with us, they worship the one merciful God who will judge humanity on the last day.

Do Muslims worship Jesus Christ and the most Holy Trinity?

No, they don't.

So how can you say that Muslims worship the one true merciful God along with Christians?

And this is in Vatican 2, which is supposed to be a council, and they're saying that Muslims worship God, the Christian God.

So that's, that's horrible.

All right.

I mean, Catholicism has some different.

Right.

So I was actually, I have someone coming by the house tomorrow night because he, he's, you know, he attends Roman Catholic Church and he asked me about praying to the saints and whether that's biblical.

He did some research and he wants to review it with me.

And so, you know, I find interesting because, like, you know, I look, I think about Mary, right?

People, you know, Roman Catholics will pray to Mary.

Do you, do you.

Do you pray to Mary at all?

Yes.

Okay.

Why do you.

Why do you do that?

Well, because the Bible instructs us to.

Okay, she's.

So is she like a mediator?

God dispenses grace through Mary, and it's through Mary that grace is also given to us who.

Who pray to pray to her for intercession.

So I guess what I'm asking is, so does she act as a mediator between us and God?

God gives her grace, and she then gives that grace to us.

So when we pray to Mary, she gives us grace that was given to her by God.

Okay, I'll try a third time.

So is she a mediator between God and man?

I just told you that God gives.

Well, I'm very.

Grace, and she gives us grace.

So whatever you will, I'm not going to play semantics here.

I'm not.

No, I'm not playing.

It's a yes or no.

So I'm.

Now I'll ask, is that your definition of a mediator?

Because I'm asking, is she a mediator and you're answering something else.

So I'm trying to make sure I understand that you're.

Your answer is not yes or no.

Either she is or is not, right?

And so your answer is something else.

So I'm trying to say is that.

Are you saying she's a mediator by your definition or not?

Is that your definition of a mediator?

Or are you saying she's something familiar.

Really, with, with what that term encompasses?

I would suppose, yes.

Because she would be.

Mediator would mean middle.

And she is between us and, And God.

So.

Sure, yeah.

I mean, because.

Because that would be a thing.

And, and yet, you know, in scripture, it says there is only one mediator between God and man, and that's the man Christ Jesus.

Right.

So.

So, like I look at that and say, okay, so I'll go further back and say that.

Would you say, okay, Vatican 2 is a problem.

I'll go further back and say, no, no, no.

Your whole Catholic Church is heretical long before Vatican 2.

And you could just look at when you started work worshiping and, or having Mary as a mediator, because Paul writes that there's only going to be one.

Right.

So.

So what?

So, so, yeah.

Well, here's where I want to get to the question, because this becomes essential.

It's.

It's.

And.

And someone put it.

Hold on, let me find.

I saw someone put.

Yeah, Jesse, he said, what's the standard?

And that's what I wanted to get to.

With.

With the question.

Okay, you're saying.

Let me ask you this, Andrew.

Do you pray for other people?

Do I pray for other people?

Yes.

I pray to Jesus for other people.

Okay, so what's the difference?

You're a mediator now.

No.

Yes.

You just said that you pray to other people on their behalf.

No.

No.

You are asking God to give.

To give that person.

I'm asking God.

I'm asking God.

So who's.

Who's the mediator?

Jesus.

Between God and man.

I'm talking to Jesus.

Who's the mediator?

Jesus.

Okay.

Who do you think Mary is talking to?

She's talking to God.

Except interceding with us.

Except the difference is you're going to marry to go to Jesus.

I'm not going to ask you to pray for them.

That's what you're doing.

It's the same thing.

So.

So you're saying that, that Mary can bestow grace.

I'm not bestowing grace when someone asks to pray for me.

Then what are you doing?

That's the whole point of I'm going to.

Is for you to ask God to give that person grace.

No, I'm going to God and just raising the, the petition to God.

Right.

So that he can give that person grace.

Yeah.

Mary, what you just said, challenges there.

Do you see the difference?

I'm not bestowing the grace.

There's no difference.

Am I bestowed.

You're praying for someone else so can.

On their behalf.

And when I asked for Mary to pray for me to God, that's.

That's what's happening.

It's the same thing, except she is more favored than me, okay?

Me and other people.

She's the most holy creature on earth.

She was born.

She disagrees with that.

She disagrees with that, but she doesn't.

Yes, she does.

But.

But the issue that I'm raising with it is this is.

I'm not.

Okay, let me ask this.

Do I bestow grace on people that ask me to pray for them?

Can I bestow grace if you are a holy person?

This is.

This is.

Well, I mean, look at people who even touched Paul or Peter's.

What was it people.

Peter performed the first miracle after the Ascension.

He.

I think he even raised someone from the dead at one point.

And this isn't even just him, by the way.

There are other saints who perform miracles.

So, yes, you can, as a holy person, perform miracles.

And that.

That requires God's grace.

So.

Yes, see, you keep playing word games again.

God's grace is not the same as me being able to give grace the way you're saying Mary does.

It is the same thing because it's not your grace, it's God's grace.

So when you are giving someone else God's grace, you were acting as a channel, as a mediator.

So you're wrong on that.

So I.

This is going to get back to what I'm saying about the standard.

You're.

You're just making definitive statements that this other Catholic bishop is a heretic and he's wrong.

I'm wrong.

By what authority can you claim those such things?

I can.

I can.

I can base what I'm saying off of the Bible and off of what previous Christians have believed for the past 2000 years.

So there's.

There's not only evidence from the Bible itself, which is the word of God, but there's evidence from the tradition of Christianity, which is also the word of God from the past 2,000 years.

And so you can only draw on the Bible, but when there's other Christians from the past 2000 years who contradict what you say, then there's.

The problem is that you're obviously interpreting the Bible incorrectly because you're going against what Christians have always believed.

So.

Yeah, so that's my authority.

It's tradition in Scripture.

Yeah, so your authority is your tradition in your scripture.

And yet your tradition had to be edited because if you read the early Church fathers.

If you know anything about the early Church fathers, you know there's two versions of the early Church fathers.

The original and the Roman Catholic version.

Do you know that there's two.

There's two different versions?

No, the.

Rome.

Rome was always seen as the authority on matters pertaining to faith and morals.

I'm going to ask this question.

I'm going to ask this question again because I kind of know where we're going with this, but I ask you a question, a very simple, direct question, yes or no questions, and you do a red herring and answer something else.

So I'll ask it again.

Do you know that there are two versions of the early Church fathers?

Okay, so the answer to that is you don't know.

No, I'm just rejecting your promise.

You're trying to.

Your.

Your framing of the question is dishonest.

Did you know that you're.

Did you know that you're a wife beater?

Andrew?

Did you know that you beat your wife?

Oh, no, I know that I'm not.

And you know how I know that I.

You know how I know that I'm not?

Because both my wife and I don't.

See, here's the thing.

It's not.

It's not.

No, it isn't.

It isn't.

And because you said it's a dishonest framing, and yet I answered your question.

I answered it.

Back it up with evidence.

So stop asking the question and just state, present, present your thesis.

So.

And then back it up with evidence.

That's it.

So, okay.

Okay.

The conversation is not going to go well if you just keep claiming everything's dishonest just because you don't like it.

Are you a homeless?

Did you know that you're a homosexual?

Andrew, did you know that you're a wife beater?

Just say, okay, you are.

Sebastian.

Let me ask you a question, Sebastian.

Can we verify whether I'm a homosexual or whether I'm a white be.

Wife beater?

Is that something we can verify?

Yes or no?

Okay.

Can we verify if there are two versions of the early Church fathers?

Yes or no?

Yes, of course.

Okay, so then it's not a dishonest question.

Not two churches.

Early church fathers.

And you're saying that there are.

So just provide the evidence.

So the evidence is if you go and you get the early Church fathers, that you look up the books, okay, the set of books, there are two different versions of them.

There's the Roman Catholic version and what's called the Protestant version.

The Protestant version is the original.

Then you have The Catholic one that was edited because it came out later.

Okay, so, yes, there are two versions.

It's not a dishonest question.

Calling it dishonest when it.

When there's a way to verify it is actually dishonest on your.

On your own part, Sebastian.

No, because you're calling me.

You're calling me dishonest for rejecting your.

Your.

Your claim that there were two early.

Two sets of early churches.

I disagree with that, and that doesn't make me dishonest.

Sebastian.

Sebastian, I don't agree.

If you want to have an honest dialogue, please, you need to stop projecting your behavior on me.

Okay?

I said did not say you were dishonest because you did.

You don't even let me straighten how.

Your framing was dishonest.

No, you didn't.

I guess dishonest.

Did you know that you are this.

Did you know that you were that.

That's what you just said.

Okay, what makes it dishonest?

You know that there were two early church fathers.

I said no, there weren't.

And then you started accusing me of being dishonest.

No, no, I.

I accused you.

I accused you.

Sets of early church fathers.

Present your evidence for me.

I did.

We can go.

We can go look up on Amazon, I'm sure, and find the different versions.

But the.

The issue I'm asking is now is when you say I'm being dishonest, I'm.

Maybe you don't have the.

Maybe you have a different definition of.

You know what honesty means.

So when I'm saying that I'm asking an honest question, it is because of the simple fact that what we can look at is we can look at a question that can be tested.

So, okay, provide the evidence.

Stop beating around the bush.

Okay, so if we were to go to the books of the early church fathers, can you go out to.

If you go out to Amazon, you will be able to find.

I'm sure that there's two of them.

Is that now is that something we can test?

Yes or no?

Yeah.

So provide the evidence.

Like, what are you waiting for?

Well, okay, fine.

You're gonna.

You're just gonna keep with this all.

I will go and look up the.

The documents on Amazon because you're.

You're totally not wanting to deal with the actual question because you're too busy.

For the evidence and you are withholding it from me.

So I'm withholding it.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm withholding it.

So tell me you made the claim and I'm waiting for the evidence.

Okay.

I made the Claim that there were two.

You referred to it as dishonest.

No, I referred to your framing of the question.

You said, did you know?

So is.

How.

How is asking you if the early.

Hold on.

How is asking you if you know something to be dishonest?

How.

Because when I.

How am I lying?

When I started shaking my head and saying no, you are.

You all of a sudden started freaking out.

When I was saying, no, there weren't.

There weren't two sets of early church fathers.

And all of a sudden you started freaking out.

So now I was freaking out.

So now I'm dishonest and I was freaking out.

Yeah, you're framing.

Your framing was.

I didn't.

Listen, Sebastian, you gotta.

You gotta stop this nonsense.

The question was not dishonest.

To ask you if you know something, it is not dishonest.

You keep saying it was dishonest because of.

Why?

Is it because you didn't know and you feel embarrassed?

Is it because you do know and you feel caught?

Is it that you.

You just don't want to have to answer the question?

What is it?

I've already told you that you didn't actually.

You gave an illustration.

You gave an illustration.

Already told you that I disagree with your claim that there were two early truth.

That has nothing to do with the question.

That has nothing to do with the question.

That has nothing to do with the question.

You said the question was dishonest.

How is the question engaging in dishonest behaviors?

How.

Let's just move on.

How?

Because if you can't answer that, then you're being dishonest.

So how.

Because this is what is.

Support your argument.

You're.

It's what you're saying.

Present the evidence.

You.

You make claim.

Sure.

I'll present the evidence.

I'll present the evidence.

There's no.

There's nothing in me asking you if you know something that is a lie.

You had a simple way you could say yes or no.

You answered it.

It's not a dishonest question.

So you now have to show me how is it a dishonest question?

Ask me again.

Are there.

Were there two church fathers and I would say no, there were not two sets of early church fathers.

Okay, now, since you're the one who says that there are, that there were.

But you said it's a dishonest question.

On you to provide the evidence.

So what are you waiting for?

We.

I've been asking for the evidence for the past 10 minutes.

Okay.

The issue is, is I've.

And I've asked this how is my question.

You said it's dishonest.

How is asking that question dishonest?

Because just the way you went about it.

As soon as I started shaking my head and.

And saying that when you said, did you know?

And I started shaking my head, no, I was disagreeing with.

With your claim that there were two sets of early church fathers.

But just.

Just the way that you frame it and just the way that you.

The behavior around it just seemed like it was a dishonest.

Okay, so.

So there's nothing.

Wait, hold on.

So there's nothing in the question.

Just state it and then back it up with evidence.

Like, let's have a.

Oh, but you're not doing that.

But wait, you're not doing that.

You're not backing up how that statement is dishonest.

You're saying that now.

You're saying it's the way it was framed.

Are you going to play word games all night like you did last time or not?

Are you going to be honest in this discussion?

You're the one.

This is.

You're the one who's playing word games.

Exactly.

This is exactly the point.

Just like.

So stop with the word games.

I'm not.

What you were doing.

And present the evidence.

I'm using the word honest and dishonest in a very simple way.

Let me define it for you.

Honest means you're telling the.

It seems like you're trying to play a gacha game.

No, no, I'm trying to have it.

Exactly what it feels like.

Because you're trying to play that way.

What it was last time you did the same line of simple questions.

Simple questions that you feel are gotchas.

And then you start playing word games.

You can't seem to answer simple questions.

That's why I'm asking you simple yes, no questions, and you can't answer them.

Let's just bury the hatchet and move on.

Then I won't accuse you again of being dishonest for what you did earlier.

As you just imply the very same thing.

Wow, that is classic.

This is funny.

All right, so let's let you play some more word games because I know you're going to.

Because.

Not that I'm poisoning the well.

Okay, could you tell me, what is the Bible?

The Bible is a collection of books that were deemed to be not only inspired, but they also fit another category.

And let's see.

That the Bible would consist.

It would have to have 73 books for it to be considered the Bible.

And it was decided at three different councils.

And so The Bible would have to fit those categories that have to have 73 books.

And it would have to be the books that were pronounced upon at the three councils and 382, 393 and 397.

Okay, so we didn't have a Bible until those three councils.

Correct.

We did.

We, we had the old Bible, the Bible of the Old Testament.

So is that the Bible or is that not the Bible?

That was the Bible, but it's no longer the Bible.

The Bible now has to consist of 73 books.

So.

Okay, so you have a definition of the Bible that eliminates what you just said is the Bible.

But you're not playing word games, so help me with this definition.

Definition obviously changed.

So the Bible once referred to one thing, refers to another.

So you have, you have a theology just changes.

But when Vatican 2 comes along and it changes, you don't like that change.

So by what standard do you accept what is and isn't?

Well, the authority that Jesus Christ, who is God made man, came and appeared before us.

So more books were written about that to be included as a part of the Bible.

So now the Bible, which once probably only included Genesis, now includes all the other books.

So it, when Genesis was written, was that the Bible?

Yeah, that's what would be considered the Bible.

At the time.

I didn't ask at the time was that the Bible.

See, I asked yes or no questions.

The past tense word was.

So yes, it was the Bible.

Okay, so it's not anymore.

It's not the complete Bible.

It's one of the books of the Bible, but it's not the Bible.

Is Genesis the Bible today?

It is not the Bible today.

So is it part of the Bible today?

It is part of the Bible today.

Was it part of the Bible when it was written?

When it was written?

Yes.

I mean, I'm trying to, I'm trying to find a way to break this down.

So simple.

So you can't play games with words.

Yeah, there's probably a point.

There was, there was a point when it was written that it was then accepted as the Bible for sure.

Okay.

Yeah.

How was it?

Gospels.

Thank you.

How was it accepted as the Bible?

There was probably.

I mean, there has to be some sort of standard where it meets certain criteria for being inspired.

It has to be inspired.

Which is just one of the, one of the requirements is that it's inspired.

Yeah.

So how.

Everything that's.

That not everything that's inspired is part of the Bible.

Okay.

What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that the word of God doesn't just refer to the Bible.

It refers to everything else that was spoken because the Bible itself informs us that the word of God is also the spoken tradition.

This is, this is what the Bible itself states.

And I can point to.

Okay, what, what.

But what else are you including when you're saying.

When you're saying the word of God, what are you including in that?

That's outside of the Bible.

I want to make sure I understand you.

Well, even the Bible itself states that Jesus performed many other works and said many other things outside that weren't recorded in the Bible.

The Bible itself says that.

And then you have 2 Thessalonians 2, 15, which says, therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.

So clearly you reject the oral tradition and thus you reject the word of God.

And that was the second Thessalonians.

What?

2 Thessalonians 15.

2.

215.

215.

Okay, so.

And you're.

So, so what is this?

So you're saying that's tradition?

Is the, the.

You're saying that's traditional oral tradition.

Okay.

Yes.

And so.

Okay, you go ahead, but I have something to say.

Yeah.

So what was when.

When Genesis was written, how did they know that was part of the Bible?

I don't know if they called it the Bible back then, but they certainly recognized it's.

It's divine inspiration.

Well, it came from someone who is holy.

We.

That's how we know that Moses's works were inspired was because Moses was clearly someone who's holy.

The people at the time recognize his miracles.

And then his writings were accepted.

Well, because he was, he himself was a holy person who's obviously graced by God.

Well, we know, I mean, we know from within the New Testament that the.

It is, you know, the Old Testament is referred to as scripture.

Now would scripture be the Bible?

Would you.

Would you say that the scripture is Bible?

Would you see them as one in the same?

Yeah.

Sacred Scripture refers to the Bible.

Okay.

Sacred Scripture refers to the Bible.

Okay.

I, I'm just trying to make sure we can get some agreement.

So Sacred Scripture refers to the Bible.

So Genesis would be scripture, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

It would be a part of scripture.

It'd be.

Okay.

Part of Scripture.

How did they, how was it accepted at the time to be part of Scripture?

I would imagine because whoever wrote it was a holy person who was performing miracles, just like Moses.

So people tend to believe your writings when you're performing miracles?

Well, like apostles, you have.

I would agree, because when there's new writing of scripture, there's three periods in history where we see miracles, and all three of those periods had to do with new writing of scripture.

So you have the time of Moses, you have the time of Elijah and Elisha, and you have the time of the apostles.

And I have.

If anyone's interested, just go to strivingforturney.org Miracles.

I have a whole message I did, where I show you all the numbers and have charts to show all through the 4004000 to 4500 years of biblical history where all the miracles done by humans are.

And you can clearly see it.

It's tied to the writing of Scripture.

Someone is asking in the chat if you could define holy.

What do you mean by holy?

Someone who's living according to God's will.

And whether someone performs miracles or not does not necessarily indicate whether that person is holy.

Certainly if you're performing miracles that only God can perform your.

Your holy.

But there's a lot of magicians nowadays who are, who are literally levitating and transporting and performing all.

And walking on water and making hundreds of fish appear out of.

Out of a bucket.

I'd like to see where people are actually doing that.

I can send you a video.

But there's.

There's people.

I mean, the Bible even talks about sorcerers, Pharaoh's wizards turned their staffs or whatever.

No.

So they're turned their staffs into snakes or.

I think Moses did that.

Moses and the Egyptians, demons copied it.

Yes.

So there was clearly wizardry occurring.

And this is, this is a fact of our realities that there are people who are working with demons who are doing these sort of miracles, but they're not receiving this sort of power from God.

Okay, so.

So let me just give a different definition of holy for that.

Just someone who's living according to God's will.

Yeah.

And the thing is, would that word for holy fit for everything?

So when the tabernacle is referred to being holy, is that something that's living for God's will?

It's a building.

So holy in Hebrew has the idea of separation.

So you, I think what you're referring to in your definition of holy I don't think is a good definition of holy.

It's a good definition maybe of holy living.

Yeah, the.

A life that's separated to God, but it wouldn't be the definition of holy.

Okay, maybe that's why she asked.

So what would you propose to be the definition?

Well, the definition of holy I would say is separation.

So if, if we're going to be.

God is holy, meaning he's separate from sin, we need to be holy in the sense that we're separate from the world.

We.

We have holy living.

As you was what I would say, what you described when we live a life unto God, that would be holy living.

So maybe like designated by God could be a good definition of holy.

Something that's been designated by God.

Well, I would, I just, I would say.

I mean, the word that we have in Hebrew for holy means separated.

Let me.

You're Jewish, so you would know.

I.

Well, no, it's not because I'm Jewish that I would know.

It's because that's what the.

Because my.

Just because I'm raised Jewish doesn't give me any greater authority to understand Hebrew.

Oh, you didn't speak.

Well, we did.

I was taught Hebrew, but just because I'm Jewish doesn't give me that right.

But it's what the word actually means.

I'm going to bring in.

We'll take your word for it.

I'm going to bring in my co host here, Aaron Brewster, who just popped in.

Aaron, welcome.

You have to unmute Aaron to.

Yes, I am.

I'm unmuted.

I feel welcomed.

Glad to see you guys here tonight.

Glad to be back.

Who is joining us?

This.

So this is.

This is Sebastian.

Sebastian is a traditional Roman Catholic.

He does not.

He doesn't believe the Pope is Catholic, basically.

And you correct me if I say something wrong.

Sebastian, he basically rejects the kind of the current Catholic church since Vatican 2.

Correct.

Would that be fair?

Correct.

Okay.

I would reject the imposter organization that occupies the Vatican.

Yeah.

Itself, the Catholic Church.

And I do hope we can get into that more.

And I, I know Alex is backstage and.

Oh, it is.

Wow.

It's already top of the hour, so we.

We'll bring him in in a moment.

All right, so, but because I think we're getting somewhere.

And this is because the question tonight is did the Roman cath.

Catholic Church give us the Bible?

Which you would say yes.

I would say no.

You, you and I both agree that the book of Genesis, when it was written, Satan was accepted as scripture as part of the Bible at the time.

Was during some time for sure.

Okay.

So the question that I'm asking now is do.

And maybe you don't know.

Do you know by what standard they would.

They would have had or how they would have accepted it as being from God.

Right.

Because a lot of, A lot of books say they're from God.

We.

We discussed already.

That is probably something to do with the fact that the people who wrote those books were themselves performing miracles that only someone who was given power by God could perform.

Now to the books of the New Testament.

Well, not all the books in the New Testament have a salvation message.

And so it's perhaps something that we.

You're going to want to talk about as well.

But the book of Philemon, for example, was included in the New Testament, and it doesn't have a salvation message.

And just because it may have it, they say it's written by Paul.

There's actually no way that you could say for sure without the oral tradition that it was indeed written by Paul.

So even someone who's a biblical scholar would have, basically, they couldn't say for sure what the books of the Bible are.

I want to stick to this, though.

So you said that they would have accepted it.

And now I want to push this a bit.

You said, because they would have done miracles, but yet you also said there's people today doing miracles, claiming to be of God.

They're false miracles.

Okay, so now by what standard can you say something's a true miracle or a false miracle?

Well, you.

You just have to look at things from a.

From a broad perspective.

So you see someone, for example, like Criss angel, mind freak, who is allowing himself to become possessed by evil spirits and then is levitating off the earth and is screaming in what could.

Only someone could describe as the voice of demons, where his voice literally sounds like there's multiple spirits within him.

And so any bystander looking from a distance could say, well, obviously what that person is doing is beyond natural.

It's supernatural.

So you're saying you don't have.

It's also evil.

Okay, you can.

People can make the distinction.

Do you have an objective standard by which.

Yeah, God is.

This is.

This is why I said they may not have known at the time which books were inspired.

But over time, when.

When you see, for example, the Jews in the Old Testament conquer their enemies over time, and it only happens when they're faithful and you see all these sort of miracles that are tied together and you look at the common theme, well, it's because they believed in this religion.

And so that's how we know that the religion of the Old Testament was valid, was through these miracles that kept occurring throughout time.

And this took many thousands of years.

Okay.

And then Jesus, of course, he fulfilled the Old Testament and made us aware that, yes, the Jews were indeed God's chosen people.

I'm going to keep trying this.

And folks, for folks watching, listening, why do I keep doing this?

Well, when, when you're doing apologetics, when you ask a question and someone does what's called a red herring, they never actually answer the question.

They go off on a different tangent.

What you don't want to do is fall for the bait of going off onto different tangent and ignoring you so they can ignore the fact that they never answered the question.

That's the reason I keep coming back to the question over and over and over and re asking it.

And you do that so that the person will have to actually answer the question, because you can't move forward in conversation if a person doesn't actually answer questions.

So I'm going to ask it again to you, Sebastian, and I'm.

And I would like an answer to the question, not a whole bunch of other things.

So the question I had asked you is by what objective standard do you know?

Because he told you the objective standard.

But.

Okay, you didn't give me an objective saying, you gave me a subjective standard.

Why is that subjective?

Okay, you're saying that it's subjective to know if something's divinely inspired or not.

Okay, so I'll ask it this way then.

Is that what you're saying, Andrew, is that it's subjective to say whether something is divinely inspired?

You can't know for sure the way.

That you explained it by us looking over time, there's then that, yes, that is subjective.

It's a collection of books over thousands of years.

But Genesis, Genesis, common theme was Genesis finally inspired and you said it's because people do miracles.

But then, but then you're saying the way we know that other people who do miracles is a false miracle.

Yeah.

By what standard?

By the same subjective standard.

1.

They're different.

How are they different?

None of those people have died and risen from the dead and.

Wait, okay, hold on, back up, back up, back up.

Because I'm not going to let you just go off on a tangent to forget.

So you're saying that Genesis, we wouldn't know that it is the Bible until someone died and rose from the dead, Is that what you're saying?

No.

Okay, so then stick with Genesis.

Stop going off on all these other tangents.

It's not just one, it's.

You're, you're trying to separate everything.

It's not just.

No, I'm trying to be precise with you.

So that the whole picture, that's what the Bible is, what I'm trying to do is be precise with you so that you can see the errors of your ways.

Because the whole problem you have is by your argument that we can't have a Bible until we have a Catholic church, then you can't claim we have any of the Old Testament books because Genesis was written like 1500 years before Jesus Christ and about 2000 years before there was even a Catholic church to give us a Bible.

In your argument there was a church.

In the Old Testament.

It wasn't the Catholic Church, but there was a church.

Yeah, we could debate that, right?

No, I don't recognize that there wasn't.

A church in the Old Testament.

They didn't have priests.

The.

No, see, see the priesthood is the Catholic Church trying to mimic the church or.

Sorry, mimic Israel Church in the Old Testament.

So they.

No.

Which came first?

Israel did.

Is the church in the Old Testament.

Which came first, Israel or the church?

Which church?

The church of the Old or the New?

Okay, let's.

Let's go with the Roman Catholic Church.

Did it exist before Jesus Christ?

No.

Okay, it existed.

So after Jesus Christ came, which one.

Was first, the nation of Israel or the Roman Catholic Church?

The nation of Israel.

The nation of Israel.

So did the.

So did Israel have priests?

Yes.

Okay, so when the Bible says we're a priesthood of believers, meaning every believer's a priest.

Nope.

That is what it.

Okay.

And we got into this last time.

You're on the.

The.

In the Old Testament, the new covenant is that we there be a priesthood of believers which is described in the New Testament.

So the, the difference between the, the nation of Israel and the church is that we wouldn't have priests anymore.

You're.

Your church has priests because we have a mediator now between God and man.

The man Christ Jesus which we.

Mediator before.

Correct.

Correct.

In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is exactly right.

No, now you're getting it.

Now you're getting it.

There was a mediator in the Old Testament, they were called the priests.

In the New Testament we don't need one because we have one mediator, and that's Jesus Christ.

He was already there the whole time.

So he was always there.

But the scriptures.

The scriptures are clear though, that Christ he just wasn't.

And he wasn't born.

He wasn't.

He didn't come into time yet, but he was.

He was still there.

He was part of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

He was there.

But the, the scriptures are clear though, that his role.

But his at the ascension that he entered into a new roles out the word.

I Want to use.

No, I know.

Aaron.

There's the one thing I want to caution you on.

So you understand Sebastian's view from, you know, Sebastian.

Sebastian is going to, you know, being, you know, he's.

He's gonna have a little bit.

I think of a different view with.

With that just.

Of course.

But my own point that I bring is that he's going to make the observation.

I'm just saying that from a logical perspective, even if you disagree with what verses mean, you could understand how a person from my perspective would say, yes, Christ being eternal, was in the Old Testament.

He was not fulfilling the same mediatorial role that he is post crucifixion.

And that there are verses that would, you know, that would.

I would claim, would substantiate that.

Yeah, but that doesn't even.

It's not just that.

This gospel message.

Okay, but here's the thing.

This is.

Because that's the red herring, what you did right there.

Okay.

Every time you throw in gospel message.

Yeah.

It has nothing to do with the question.

Okay.

There's clear parallels between the old and new.

Okay.

You're just.

You're just deciding which parts.

No, I'm not.

No, I'm not.

See, that's the difference.

That's the difference.

I can say that Genesis was scripture when it was written, and I agree that it was recognized as scripture when it was written.

Which right there, when you say that is the proof that we didn't need a Catholic church to tell us what the Bible is because it was recognized immediately at the time.

By who?

By the people who are alive at the time.

By who?

And who are they?

God's people.

God's people.

The nation of Israel.

And who were God's people at the time?

I just said the nation of Israel.

Nation of Israel.

Pretty sure that they became Christians at the time.

They.

So they were no longer Jews.

They became Christians.

So you do realize that.

And I'm talking about the New Testament books, by the way.

I'm not talking about the Old Testament.

What part of Genesis do you think is in the New Testament?

I keep.

I'm sticking with Genesis.

Talking about Genesis.

I know, I know that's the game you're playing.

I am talking about Genesis.

Throughout this program, I keep talking Genesis because I want you to see the error in your thinking because you keep having to jump to new.

Like, understand, son.

Sebastian, I.

I care about you, okay?

I.

I want.

You're talking about Genesis still.

We were talking about the.

I've never.

Talking about the people at the time.

I thought we were talking about.

About the Jews who had converted to Christianity.

Okay, but if you're talking about Genesis.

So in.

Sure.

The people of Israel at the time who were a church.

They were not a church.

Yes, they were.

The.

The old.

The people of the Old Covenant were all a part of a unified religion.

They were.

Okay, okay, I'm gonna ask.

And there were leaders.

Do you know there were people who.

Do you know the first usage of the word ecclesia in history?

When was it.

It was an Ephesus.

It referred to a.

Basically, it was when they would have people come together for a vote.

It was basically an election.

It was the gathering together.

It was an open gathering for the purpose of voting.

That was in assembly.

Yeah, it's an assembly for voting.

So that was in like 2 or 300 BC.

So you're going to tell me that the nation of Israel was the church before church even existed, before there was even the word for it?

Is that what you're telling me?

Yeah, they.

The people of Israel most definitely were a church.

They.

They were the church of the Old Testament.

They weren't the Catholics.

They had a hierarchy.

They had.

David, why.

Okay, there was.

There was hierarchy in the Old Testament for sure.

And there was a priest.

Why is it in.

But why is it important for you to force a newer concept that didn't exist at that time that comes from a completely different language?

Why is it important to force it on there, where you have to argue for the English word church and the English concepts?

Well, it's even worse than that.

Aaron, what are you trying to prove?

He's arguing for a Greek word.

What I just said is that there was an organization in the Old Testament that had high hierarchy.

Exactly like how.

No one's going to argue that they were organized.

God created a theocracy.

God created laws.

No one's going to argue that.

Right?

Yeah, that's.

And I agree.

I agree with that.

But why does it have to be a church?

Why do you have to call it a church?

Well, because that's what it was.

It.

It wasn't.

It was called.

It was called Israel.

I'm not going to call it an.

No, no, no, no, no.

Listen, listen, hold on, Aaron, hold on one second.

A good observation.

So Muslims as a unified religion equals a church.

Not.

Not a Christian church or not.

Not like a biblical church.

But.

So, so is Israel.

Okay, so is Israel.

I'm cutting you off because you do these.

And I know there's someone backstage that also wants to come in, ask questions.

Leadership they don't have a hierarchy in Islam.

Not like.

Yes, they do.

Not like it was in the Old Testament or the New.

Absolutely they do.

Who's the leader of the.

Who's the leader of the Muslims?

Imams.

Who gets to decide on matters pertaining to faith and morals.

They have different.

Yeah, just like.

Just like Israel.

Just like Israel has priests.

Just like Israel had priests.

They have imams.

Yes, Right.

And the Orthodox community has a bunch of different patriarchs, but they're not a unified church.

They're not a single church.

Yeah, okay.

Orthodox don't have patriarchs.

You need to have one person at the top who has everything.

That's okay.

Okay.

You know what it's called?

Called when you have one person at the top?

A cult.

A church.

A cult.

A cult.

Okay, so who is David?

Who is David?

He was a king.

Okay.

Yeah, he's a king.

Where was he?

He was the king.

He was the king of Israel.

That's a government position.

And was he.

Was he.

It wasn't a religious title.

Do you realize that?

Was David designated by God to be the head of the Israeli people?

The Israelites.

Okay, so let.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

He wasn't.

I'm going to show you how.

Oh, David wasn't designated.

If you're gonna.

If you're not gonna speak over me, I will answer how.

Because I'm being very precise and you aren't.

I said he is a government leader.

He's not a religious leader.

And what did he get in trouble for?

How?

The Bible describes David as just a government.

So if you will let me finish, you will get your answer.

What did David get in trouble for?

What did Saul get in trouble for?

When they acted as a religious leader.

When Saul's.

Why was Saul's.

Why did Saul have the kingdom ripped from him?

Sacrifice.

He wasn't allowed to do because he acted as a priest.

He did a sacrifice.

Okay.

So the kingdom was ripped away from him because he, being a king of Israel, tried to act like a priest of Israel, and God condemned him for that and ripped the kingdom away from him.

So the answer to your question is yes.

There is a big difference between the two.

David was the king, the government ruler.

In fact, the fact that Saul was in that position was also a condemnation because when they.

When the people of Israel asked for a king, God said, they're turning their back on him.

He had to comfort Samuel because Samuel knew what they were asking for was.

Was a.

Was an anathema.

It was a curse.

They were rejecting a theocracy where God is the head.

So when you talk about a person at the head, that's not biblical.

That's not what the spiritual nation would be.

So priesthoods don't have.

Look at Moses, who is Moses.

So, so this is.

So folks, I want those of you watching listening to pick up what just happened.

He got a clear answer.

And what does Sebastian do?

Well, what about this?

Well, what about that?

And he's going to do this all.

Night long in the Old Testament.

I'm trying to.

I'm trying to.

There is a theme.

If there was a theme.

If there was a theme, as you say, then it would be consistent.

You can't be consistent and I can.

There's no consistent in the Old Testament of leaders who are designated by God to make.

Not the way you are arguing.

Yeah.

So why, why is it that we have judges?

Why is it that.

That even in with Moses, did God tell Moses that he should be the ruler of all people?

No.

He ends up.

He ends up getting 70 other men to do it.

Right.

So.

So again, the fact is, I'm giving you the fact that the Bible disagrees with you.

And all you could do is go, what about this one?

What about that one?

What about this one?

You're.

You're ignoring the fact that the ascent to the question that we have, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible?

You have agreed that the Bible.

We had a Bible when Genesis was written.

We had more of the Bible when Exodus was written.

Those were the Bible recognized at the time.

Do we agree with that?

Yes.

Okay.

Therefore we do not need a Catholic Church to give us the Bible.

We had it long before, before there was a Catholic Church.

You've agreed that Genesis was recognized as the Bible.

You agree that Genesis was written before the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church in your mind started when Jesus came.

So we know we had the scripture before the Catholic Church.

So you didn't.

And I'll prove it.

I have evidence.

Because first off.

And after that, we're going to bring in Alex, who's in the back state backstage.

So give your proof.

So the, the problem you're making is that you are on one hand, accepting the tradition of the Catholic Church while also saying that you don't need that.

Wait, whoa, stop, stop, stop, stop.

The oral tradition.

Hold on.

No, no.

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.

And now you're calling me dishonest again.

And I'm going to show that you're the one being dishonest.

Well, just make a point here, because when hold on.

No, because I'm, I'm, I'm not going to let you do this again.

When Genesis was written, did the Catholic Church exist?

No, but we're not talking.

Okay, yes, we are.

We are talking about Genesis.

That's the whole point.

You, you, you keep playing this game.

We're not talking about Genesis.

The only book, the only book that I'm talking about as being part of the Bible that is in this discussion is Genesis.

That's it.

No other book.

I only want to talk about Genesis.

That's it.

I just want to talk Genesis.

We're talking.

Okay?

Church give us.

Was Genesis.

When Genesis was written, was it recognized as scripture?

Yes or no?

I don't know when it was recognized.

Like I said, there are books that maybe take.

May have taken a longer time to be recognized as divinely inspired.

So I don't know when it was recognized.

At some point it was recognized.

The fact that Christ refers to it as scripture, that the disciples refer to the Old Testament scripture, would probably be.

An indication that it's divinely inspired.

Right.

So would that indicate that they knew it was scripture before the Roman Catholic Church, before we have a church, before Jesus was ascended?

Yes, because there were people in the Old Testament, authorities in the Old Testament period, who decided which books were divided.

Fine, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I disagree with that somewhat, but I'm gonna say fine for that.

Who decided?

Was there just a democratic election and they all just voted on which books?

No, that's what the, that's what the Roman Catholic Church did.

You had a, you had a meeting, you had a council where they voted on it.

Right.

That's what the Roman Catholic Church did.

Exactly.

And the council.

Exactly.

What do you think happened in the Old Testament?

Probably the same thing.

Probably.

You're saying probably because it's wishful thinking.

The fact is, you have no other.

Way of deciding how it would have happened.

Really?

No.

No other possible.

There's no other possible way.

Even though you yourself decided in the Old Testament, you yourself gave possible ways.

In this episode, in, in earlier, you actually said maybe it was that they is because they did miracles.

Maybe it was because they were, they were seeing things that God was doing.

So you already gave other ways.

Right.

But who, but who, who, who decided?

Who had the final say?

Why does someone have to have final say?

Why could it, why could it not be the fact that, as we see in Romans Chapter one, that everyone knows God exists such that when they hear God's word, they know it's God's?

Word.

Well, I'll answer that.

So in the 4th, up until the 4th century, when the canon of Bible was finally determined, there were books that were accepted in some Christian communities as divinely inspired, but rejected in others.

So I have a bit of prepared material here for you to read.

Okay?

Now, and by the way, when you say that, we have to recognize that the books you're claiming were added in the 1500s.

No, they weren't.

Yeah, and I'll get to that as well.

But that's also a lie.

Okay, I'm gonna.

I'm gonna be.

I'm just gonna be really straight right now.

You call me a liar one more time and I'm banning you from the show because I'm getting sick and tired of it.

All right, well, you're.

You.

You're accused.

Okay?

So let's address.

Listen, listen, hold on.

Okay?

Here's the thing.

These books were.

I am muting you.

So you.

You're not going to talk over me on the show.

Okay, you can keep.

I see your mouth going.

No one's hearing you.

A lie is when someone is saying something that is not true.

The fact that you're saying that you think I don't know something is not a lie.

When you're saying I'm being dishonest, as you've said throughout, when I'm not.

When I'm asking you a yes or no question, you don't want to answer it.

That's not dishonest.

That's you not wanting to answer.

So I'm not going to put up with it any.

Any longer.

Call me a liar one more time and you're out of here.

Is that clear?

Because you have written books and you.

You should.

Is that clear?

But you continue to say these things, that those books weren't added in the 15th century, and I'll explain why.

Are you aware, okay, the New Testament books quote the septuagint over 300 times.

Did you know that?

Wait, do you.

What is the Septuagint?

I want to see if you even understand.

This has to do with.

Because the seven books that you claim were added in the 15th century were in the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Right.

And the rabbis in history have never accepted the books that you've added as part of Scripture.

Yes.

There's other books that are translated.

I have a lot of books.

I have.

I have books from Martin Luther that were translated from German.

Does that mean that if I have another book that's translated from German to English.

That, that they're at the.

They're the same.

Like if one was.

Was inspired, the other must be just because they were translated.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament which was completed a few centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.

Yes.

So clearly, clearly, it was accepted as part.

No, as part of that because.

Because the rabbis had, as we.

I said last time, the Council of Jamnia, they rejected those.

Oh, rejected.

Later.

When, when did they reject it?

Well, the Council of Germany was 70.

AD 70 AD but yet the Christian writers of the New Testament quoted the Septuagint over 300 times.

Yes, because they quoted the same.

Is there, is there any of it that's quoted?

Logical.

Yeah.

Did they quote from the books you're claiming?

That's what I'm saying.

That's exactly what I was gonna ask.

Yes.

Okay.

Which books?

What.

So where in the New Testament do we see quotes coming from those apocryphal.

Books, first and Second Maccabees.

Those all show up in the New Testament text as being quoted.

Yes.

Where.

Yeah.

Where in the New Testament can we see a quote coming from an apocryphal book?

Because the only one that you're going to be able to argue would be Enoch, where it refers to a book of Enoch, and we don't know when that was.

You know, where you refers to Enoch, we don't know what Enoch might have had.

And I don't think there was even writing in the time of.

By time of Enoch.

So if I can prove the fact that the New Testament books, books quoted from the books that were moved, then you would have.

You would have to agree with my.

No, I wouldn't.

I.

I only if you'll agree that, that if, if Paul was to refer in Titus as he does to one of the.

He says in, In Titus, chapter 1, verse 12, one of these, a prophet of their own said, cretins are all liars and evil beasts.

Are you now going to take the words of.

Of Cret the Cretan.

I forget his name offhand, but the Cretan poet.

And are you going to say he's inspired because he's quoted in the New Testament is everything that he's written.

But we're talking about the apostles.

I want you to be consistent.

You cannot say that just because it's quoted.

The apostles were divinely inspired.

This is an apostle writing this in Titus, is he not?

Titus is quoting a Cretan, a Cretan poet.

Does that mean that everything the Cretan poet wrote or anything else, even if he's.

What the rest of what he wrote is.

Is that inspired?

Is that Scripture?

Because he quotes it.

Okay, but these were books that were in the Septuagint.

Don't say okay, but.

Don't say okay, but it's a yes or no question.

I want you to stay consistent.

Just because it's quoted?

Because I just.

I don't understand.

I don't understand your line of reasoning.

Okay, Just because Jesus and the apostles.

Let me make it simple for you.

Your argument that you're making is the fact that the New Testament writers quote these apocryphal books means it must be Scripture.

Is that your argument?

Yes.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

They consider those books.

Okay, Scripture.

Then you're saying that some.

Some Jewish rabbis, 70 A.D.

decided that they weren't.

Okay, so we should just believe that those books are Scripture.

Sebastian, Sebastian, try to listen to what someone's telling you instead of trying to answer them.

You're so busy trying to give me an answer, you're not trying to listen.

So I'm going to try.

I'm trying to make this as simple so you can understand.

And we got a lot of questions for you, and we got someone backstage that has questions, so I'm going to ask again.

Is that.

Do.

Do you agree that your argument is that just because they're quoted in the New Testament, it means that they must be accepted as Scripture?

Is that your argument?

Yes, I'm saying that yes.

Fine.

If Jesus and the apostles quote the books that were once accepted as scripture in the Old Testament, then we should also accept those books as being sacred Scripture.

Okay?

And now, see this thing, you shove things.

They were never accepted.

That is a position you hold to.

You haven't proven.

But now I'm going to use your argument to say the fact that Paul.

It only quotes other books that were inspired.

Then in Titus, chapter 1, verse 12, then the author of the cretins that wrote cretins are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.

That.

That person.

I forget his name offhand, but that author, every.

What he wrote was also Scripture.

Is that what you're arguing?

No, clearly not.

But that is your argument when it comes to these other books.

So.

So you just threw out your argument.

So now it doesn't matter if the New Testament does quote one of the apocryphal books because you've just thrown out that argument.

Okay, so then on the flip side, you think that they're not Inspired because some Jewish rabbis in 70 AD who reject Christ say that those books.

I'm saying the reason.

No, no, no, no.

That isn't my argumentation.

Is that they.

That we have the accepted books.

It was never accepted.

There's plenty of books that get translated.

We have lots of books.

They've been accepted for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

And then they said, no, they were not.

They were not.

You said those seven books were added when they were used in worship for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

So they were never seen as canon.

Yes, they were.

They were.

They were officially codified in 1500.

But they were always considered.

That's right.

They were officially codified.

And in that first council that you talk about, the books were not seen as scripture.

So.

So, okay, I'm gonna.

Because I see someone who in.

In Nissan.

In three, what, 324, 325.

I'm pretty sure that in 390.

So here's.

They did recognize those books as being.

Yeah, so you go to the later council.

Making my point beautifully.

Thank you.

I'm going to bring Alex in because I know he's been backstage for a while, has questions.

I just want for folks to realize.

And actually, Mr.

Tracy has a great question.

He's saying, who gave us the spituagin?

Yeah, those same Jewish rabbis that you want to reject.

Same Jewish rabbis.

Yeah, These were.

These were Jews.

The Jews in 70 AD were Jews who rejected Christ.

They didn't accept God's revelation that the Jews of the Old Testament did.

Wait, all Jews in the Old Testament did.

All Jews in the Old Testament accepted Christian.

Well, they accepted God's revelation.

All of them.

And I said accepted God's revelation.

Which would all include.

Which would include the coming of Christ.

All of them.

I'm going to keep asking all of them.

All Jewish people.

The ones who believed in the God.

God.

Oh, now we qualify it.

Oh, now it's.

Now it's qualified.

Those who believe in God.

Ah, okay, so now it's not all.

It's amazing how quickly you flip when forced.

Well, because you have to make a distinction between Jews.

Yes.

Who are ethnically Jews and Jews.

Correct.

And that's why I'm not playing the word games you're playing.

But if you believe in heresies, you're.

Not a Christian, and that's why you're not a Christian.

I agree.

That's why.

That's why Jesus said so.

If you don't believe that.

Alex, what do you say?

Alex?

Welcome to.

If you don't believe in me.

Something along those lines.

Alex, what questions do you have for us tonight?

I don't even know where I want to go right now.

They're.

I've been taking notes the whole time, and there's just so many different avenues.

Hello.

Hello.

Sebastian.

Nice.

Nice to meet you.

Hi.

What's your name?

Alex.

Alex, I'm actually writing a paper right now in the damning Gospel of Roman Catholicism.

Well, this is going to be fun.

Yeah.

So I've been studying Catholicism a lot.

So how long have you been a Catholic?

I converted probably around two or three years ago.

Just two or three?

How old are you, if you might ask?

I'm 27.

What did you convert from?

Mask from.

Well, it was kind of a long journey.

I was baptized Catholic and then fell away.

Then I was a Vatican 2 sect adherent, and then I became atheist, and then I became like a Protestant for a while, and then, well, before that I was like a Jordan Peterson person and then became kind of like a Protestant, and then I came back to the apostate Church, and then I found out about the true Catholic Church.

So when you refer to apostate Church, what are you.

What are you referring to?

I'm referring to the organization that currently occupies the Vatican and proclaims to be the Catholic Church, but actually is leading everyone to apostasy.

Okay, let me ask you another question.

Are you a fan of Nick Fuentes?

He says some true things, but he's a heretic and he swears a lot on his show.

Oh, interesting.

Okay.

I mean, some Catholic people that are fans of him.

He's not a Catholic.

And he also.

By what.

By what standard do you keep from voting for Trump?

But by what standard do you keep declaring who is and isn't a Catholic?

What gives you the authority to do Muslims, Catholics.

You didn't answer my question.

By what authority?

I can.

I can say they are not Catholic because there's a definition of what Catholicism is and they don't hold to it.

Yeah, there's a definition of what Catholicism.

So what is.

I'm going to ask again.

By what standard do you have to say people are not Catholic?

The same standard.

You just said there's a definition.

Okay.

So there's certain requirements you have to meet in order to be.

Yeah.

What's the definition?

So for.

For, for example, you have to reject false counsels like that can do.

You have to.

You have to.

And by the way, where.

Where is that.

Where is that that stated in the definition prior to Vatican 2 that you have to reject false councils.

I'm sure there's.

No, no, no.

Do you, do you currently attend a Catholic Church?

I don't attend Mass, but I am a part of the Catholic Church.

You are.

You are looking at someone who is a part of the true Catholic Church.

Okay, but.

So you don't attend a.

Like a building.

You don't go into a building for Mass or.

Not at the moment, no.

There's none near me that hold the correct positions, unfortunately.

Okay, that's interesting.

And by the way, this isn't a.

This isn't a completely unique time in history.

If you get.

Are you guys familiar with the Aryan crisis?

Yeah, I'm also, I'm also familiar when there were three popes.

So, you know, you guys, you know, you guys say there was a line of papal succession that I guess is broken now and has been broken plenty of times.

I mean, popes, clearly, they're not.

If there's three people claiming to be popes, and a pope by definition is a singular person who holds office and presides over the entire church, then the other two cannot be popes.

So that's, that's, that's another.

Yeah, but see, they all.

Yeah, but, but the thing is, is that you said that the church, Catholic Church, you hold to the papacy, and yet there.

There isn't a papacy right now.

So.

So there is no Catholic Church interregnum.

Sometimes for a few years.

So would you say that there is no Catholic Church right now?

I'm saying that there is a Catholic Church, but there's just far less Catholics.

But you said the Catholic Church requires the papacy, and there is no papacy.

Yeah, there is.

There's just no one in the seat.

It's empty.

And there's been plenty of periods.

What do you think happens when a pope dies?

There's.

There's sometimes a year or two where there's no one in that seat.

Okay.

Just in an extended interregnum.

Okay.

So.

But there's supposed to be a succession from Peter to today, right.

Handed off.

So if we.

If you don't have a pope, how do you have that succession?

Because the chair still exists.

The office of the papacy still exists.

And really quick, you guys asked me for how I'm able to authoritatively state whether someone is a heretic.

This is from Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2, on Revelation in 1870, quote, hence, also that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother has once declared, and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper, deeper understanding.

And so it's with that authoritative statement that I as a Catholic can say that when the Vatican 2 Council is trying to tell me that Muslims worship the Christian God and that Christians worship the Muslim God, that that council is preaching heresy and needs to be rejected.

Yeah, but, but you said that, that that doctrine could change.

No, I didn't.

You did.

At the very beginning of the show.

I said that books could be added to the Bible.

We know.

Before we got into talking about that.

Yeah, he's very double minded.

He's gone back and forth on so.

Many positions and he doesn't see it.

He doesn't see the.

Whether I say that Dr.

Doctrine can change.

Early in, early in the show.

You, you, we were talking about different things and you were saying that, that it could change.

And so I didn't.

You misheard me.

I said that doctrines must be.

I'll go back and listen.

Cannot change.

And that it's Bishop Barron because we're talking about Bishop Barron, presumably.

And he's the one who's saying that doctrines can basically change by.

But he, but he is saying that he's the one that is, that is adhering to doctrines.

But he's not.

He's Vatican 2.

If you, if you believe in Vatican 2, you believe that doctrines can change because they're teaching new doctrines that contradict everything that the church has taught for the past 2000 years.

Was.

Do you.

Okay, I think, I think Pope John Paul ii, when he, when he began.

Do you believe he was a Pope?

Was he in the scene type.

From the very beginning?

From the very beginning.

Okay, he, he preached heresy, I think even in his books prior to even being elected to that position.

But he was an anti Pope and he was.

I mean, the very notion that he was even elected would presuppose that the institution electing him was also the Catholic Church, which they weren't.

So it's all just, it's just a big farce.

It's fake.

It's an imposter organization.

Let me ask you a question.

Who else believes what you believe?

Oh, there's many.

State of the cantists.

Yeah, there's many.

Sado.

Cant spell it out for you.

Sado Kantis.

Yeah, yeah.

Alex, you, you can E D E.

If you.

Alex, if you, if you reach out to, if you go to Met Slicks, it's.

Yeah, if you go to met, two Latin words.

S E D E V, which means empty bacon.

V A C A N T.

So.

Alex, if you go to carm.org which I know, you know Max Slick, he, he deals with the, the sadocantists.

We used to have them.

We, we actually had a number of.

When we started this program many years ago, we had a number of sadocantis that used to come in here weekly.

So it's, it's been a long time.

Just really quick.

D is asking, does Sebastian attend mass weekly?

He already answered that and said no.

No, there's no valid masses near me.

Yeah, so go ahead.

Alex.

Yeah, I want to touch on something.

Do you.

Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?

Yes.

And I also believe that tradition is the word of God.

Okay, so you.

Yeah.

Bible and tradition.

Yeah.

Okay, but you made a comment earlier, tradition as the word of God.

What was that?

Do you accept oral tradition as the word of God?

Except the Bible is the word of God.

But why not Bible and tradition?

Because there's no way to proving what that oral tradition is.

Yeah, well, I can read out to you from the Bible.

It commands us to accept oral tradition.

No, show me that scripture.

Yeah, it accepts tradition.

2 Thessalonians, 2, 15.

And I'll read it out.

It is therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.

Well, the letter is clearly the gospels and the books of the New Testament.

But here's the thing.

We don't have that oral tradition anymore because.

Yes we do.

Of course we do.

What do you think dogmas are?

What do you think the writings of the church councils are?

So, so let me, let me put it this way.

When, when in Islam you have the Quran and with their belief of the Quran, it was an oral tradition.

It was passed down from Muhammad 18 years after he died.

They realized during a war that they were, you know, they had a whole bunch of their soldiers that had died.

They were afraid of losing the Quran, the oral tradition.

So they wrote it down and they ended up discovering that they all had different versions of the oral tradition.

The only way you can know for sure is that it's written down.

And when you have it written down, you can then compare it.

That doesn't even make sense.

Why, why would that be the only way?

Because you, if you.

Have you ever played the telephone game?

Yeah.

Okay.

That's your oral tradition.

If anything's changed in that, you don't know because there's no way to compare it.

Unless church existed before the Bibles for.

As much as 60 years.

The church existed before the Bible.

The gospel Writing is rather exist.

Didn't exist until 60 years.

Okay, wait, let's go back to that verse.

One of those red herring things.

Yeah, exactly, Right.

He does them all the time.

I don't even know what a red herring is.

That's what people do.

I just want to make an observation here, okay.

Because your second Thessalonians passage, right, One of the things I've noticed with you, Submission, and I think you and I have been on another show together.

Is that correct?

When you're talking about Mary being the ark?

Yep, that's what I thought.

So one of the things that I've noticed about you is that you take words and you cram a ton of meaning into them that don't inherently belong there.

Well, from your second Thessalonians passage, the word.

Well, I'm just saying, just so as an example from the second Thessalonians passage, the tradition, that Greek word literally just means something that is handed down.

Okay?

Handed down to somebody else, whether by word of mouth and then of mouth, of course, obviously is italicized there in our.

In our scriptures, because that's that we.

It's.

It's to help us understand it's not actually there.

It's.

But what was.

What was the word?

We don't know what the word was.

You say that it's dogmas.

You say that it's things that have, you know, the traditions that have.

Did the Catholic Church now hold.

Holds to.

But what if the Word was just what they were teaching, that came from the script.

People didn't have their own copies of the scripture.

Some people had letters.

So some churches possess letters of the Bible.

Hold on one second.

Until as much as 60 years after Christ's ascension.

I'm not missing the point, because the point that I was trying to make.

Years when there wasn't even a Bible.

So you don't know what his point is because you won't let him finish.

It is recognizing what you were saying.

You went to second Thessalonians, right, to talk about oral tradition.

That's what you're talking about.

And I'm answering that point that you made.

Okay?

So the point you made about oral traditions, which you pulled from second Thessalonians and crammed into traditions and crammed into the Word.

Word is that that has to mean the continuing traditions held by the correct Roman Catholic Church today.

But that's not what those words means.

That's not what that verse refers to.

There could be lots of different meanings, lots of different things.

So I'm just saying I just want.

To be careful of all of your predecessors, okay, I can say for sure, because St.

John Chrysostom actually quotes this in 398 and then he says from this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter.

But there was much also that was not written like that which was written.

The Unwritten 2 is worthy of belief.

Okay, so let us regard the tradition.

Of the church also.

This is from a Christian from the year 398.

Okay, Sebastian, Sebastian.

Hold on, hold on, gentlemen.

As far as I understand, wasn't inspired.

Hold on, hold on, everyone.

Hold on one second.

I want to do.

I want to do one thing with Sebastian.

I want to do one thing with Sebastian.

Sebastian.

I am going to.

Sebastian, determine the canon of the Bible.

Sebastian, I am going to give you.

I'm going to take the way you read the Bible and I'm going to give you a verse that condemns your whole argument.

So I won't do the same.

So I know, because you authority anything that you're saying.

The Bible has no authority.

You have absolutely no authority for anything that you're saying.

You reject what Christians.

So the Bible has no authority.

So me reading the Bible traditionally, Sebastian, I'm going to read God's word.

Word to you.

I'm going to read God's word to you.

Does that have authority?

Of course.

Okay, then, then turn to.

Turn to Colossians.

Turn to Colossians, chapter 2, verse 8.

Let's see what the Bible says about tradition.

It says, see that.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceptions, according to the tradition, Tradition of men according to the elementary principles of the world rather than according to Christ.

That's literally about Protestant tradition.

That's what Protestantism fits that perfect.

Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

So wait, you're telling me that this.

Was written before 1500 years after Christ.

So, so you're saying this was written as a prophecy for something that didn't exist for 1500 years?

Yeah.

Do prophecies not exist in the Bible?

Okay, is that what you're saying?

Because it's not written as a prophet, as a prophecy.

Yeah, it's clearly, it's clearly meant to indicate that there would be people like yourselves who then explain something to.

Then explain something to me.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Guys, guys, hold on, hold on.

Sebastian, Sebastian, explain something to me.

If that's.

I'm gonna go with it.

So you're gonna say this is a prophecy.

Then why do the two imperative an indication.

Okay?

And then how about.

How about you keep your mouth shut and listen long enough to know what the question is?

Okay, if.

If you want to say it could be a prophecy, explain to me then the two words here that are.

That we have, okay?

As takes.

And captive.

And captive take you captive.

Okay?

These two.

What we have are two verbs that are present, active participles.

So if they're present, active, what that means in Greek is that it was present at the time, not future.

In Greek, if this was a prophecy, it would be future.

This is present and it's active, meaning something they have to do.

They had to presently do this to that.

That this tradition presently actively takes people captive.

There's no way this could refer to something 1500 years later.

By the way the Greek language works, that's God's word.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but what that verse says is the ver.

This condemns the very thing you're saying that we should hold to Tradition.

This says that we shouldn't allow tradition to take us captive.

As you have been taken captive by your Tradition.

No, I haven't.

I use both Scripture and tradition to support my arguments.

You don't, because this verse says you shouldn't.

Okay, we have to use.

You have no traditions.

Your tradition.

Listen.

Okay, can I interpret.

How can you even propose that?

Right after I read 2 Thessalonians, 2, 15, which clearly want to go back.

Let's go back to second Thessalonians.

If you go back to the beginning of the chapter.

I said a thing about second Thessalonians.

I said a thing about it.

You told me you were wrong.

See, that's what you do.

You just say everyone's wrong.

But by what authority?

Because you guys are wrong.

By what authority?

Being secretive about that.

By what authority?

You guys.

You guys have been wrong this whole time.

By what authority?

My.

Well, based off of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the two things that you're supposed to hold.

Is one of those.

No, no, what you're left with is self interpretation.

No, you.

You actually.

Okay, I'm going to prove to you again, like I did last time, that you reject the authority of Scripture.

Very simple, Sebastian.

Can I read scripture without Tradition, without the Catholic Church, the Magisterium and Tradition?

You can, but if you.

If you interpret it away, if you interpret it in a way that contradicts sacred Tradition, then you're clearly so clearly interpreting it.

Okay, so.

So therefore Tradition is a greater authority than the Bible.

I'm not saying it's greater, but it has to be the world tradition precedes the Bible.

Okay, so we need tradition and the church to interpret the Bible, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Therefore your tradition and your church are a greater authority than God's word.

That's heresy.

Is God's word.

The church is not God's word.

The tradition, the oral tradition is God's word.

But you don't know what that tradition is because it was never written down.

It doesn't matter.

It's an oral tradition.

Okay, okay.

Let me ask you a question.

Where.

Where does the Bible say that it needs to be written down for it to be valid?

It.

It doesn't say that.

It's just common sense.

But that's why we go to telephone game.

But let me ask you a question.

Is the Mishnah.

Is the Mishnah.

Hold on.

Is the Mishnah, do you follow the Mishnah?

The Mishnah, the oral tradition of the Jewish people that was written down.

Do you follow that?

That's the oral tradition.

They say it came right from Sinai.

To accept it because it's the oral tradition of the Jews, the Old Testament that gave us the books of the Old Testament.

But that's the oral tradition question here.

Right?

Just a quick question here.

What's interesting, and there's.

There's a catch 22 to all of this.

Okay.

I'm a Christian, right?

Do I get to just speak tradition?

And I know the answer is no, of course you don't agree with that.

Because if you did agree with that, I would just speak right now and I would start a tradition that says you're wrong and I'm right.

But you know that you wouldn't accept that.

Right.

However, and I know that the Catholics have lots of rules about who gets to be the person who gets to create tradition, who gets to just speak.

Well, that has to be followed.

But the problem with that is you got a lot of people speaking.

That's why he read from Colossians, chapter 2, verse 8, that there was.

That there is a lot of tradition of men.

There are a lot of things that, that raise themselves up against Christ that needs to be torn down in obedience to Christ.

There's a lot of things like that.

So one of the issues with oral tradition, and there's lots of them, this is just one tiny one, is the fact that who gets say that the tradition that was passed down came from a reputable source.

And this is just one small.

There's many, many of them.

But it's a big problem with oral tradition because you don't know who said that thing that supposedly we're all supposed to submit to and whether that person was trustworthy.

Well, this is where discernment comes in, and this is why it requires people, holy people who are living holy lives in accordance with God's will to make these sorts of decisions.

And that's what you see has been with the Catholic Church.

These are.

These are saints.

These are people who have lived holy lives.

Wouldn't you agree, though, that the Catholic Church, that different.

Different popes have said things that have contradicted what previous popes have said?

No, there's no.

If you have a pope, you have.

A pope today, you have a pope.

Today that contradicts Pratt past dogma.

And I have done that with Vatican, too.

And that's why I can say that Vatican 2 is invalid, because it contradicts previous, previously defined.

So.

So here's the thing.

And I.

I got, like.

I got over a dozen questions that people have been asking.

I want to.

I want to try to get to these.

I have till.

I have another hour, if that's what you want.

So.

So here's.

Here's the thing.

What we're trying to try to help you see, right, Is.

And I get that you're blinded by this.

You can't see this.

And I get it because I've dealt with other people that are in cults, and I know you don't like me saying you're in a cult, but it is a control that they have over you.

See, there's no one that has control over me other than God.

There's no.

There's no authority over me telling me what I must believe.

You don't have any authority at all.

That's the problem.

I said I do.

I said I do.

You have no authority at all.

Who did I.

He doesn't even hear what you're saying.

No, he doesn't.

That's the whole thing.

He's very blinded you.

You're not even listening.

You're so quick to.

You're.

All you're doing is trying to answer things that you think we're saying or things that you wish we'd say.

And you're not answering what's.

That's.

What.

That's why you look so foolish.

Like, I'm.

I'm sure that everybody is.

That's watching you say that.

Proverbs 15:5.

A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is prudent.

Oh, Andrew's my rabbi now, for sure.

I mean, it's like you really just.

Okay, this is, this is just taking too long and you guys are kind of just badgering around the point.

Okay, so you, you stated that, okay, everything needs to be written down, right?

Okay.

Are you aware that the Bible wasn't even mass distributed until the 15th century and that virtually no one had access to it?

Isn't that kind of a big problem?

Who was quoting scripture?

Okay, hold on, let's deal with that.

What's the role of a scribe?

Scribe.

It'S someone that writes down.

What was someone assigned to write down?

No, I'm being very specific.

In the Old Testament, what was the role of the scribes?

So this is long before the 15th century, the role of the scribes to.

Write down historical events.

Nope.

They were also referred to in New Testament as lawyers to write the scripture.

Every.

Every.

So you're saying no one would have access to have a.

Virtually no access.

So I don't.

Virtually.

So let's see if that's true.

There's two things required to open a synagogue.

So after the Israel is dispersed and they go and start the Rabbinic Judaism with, with the synagogues, two things are required to open a synagogue.

Do you know what they are?

You had to have 10 Jewish men and a copy of the scriptures that were given from a scribe.

So you're saying they have virtually none.

But every Jewish town had a synagogue, which meant they all had access to the scripture in the Old Testament.

You make.

Listen, listen.

Understand, son, what you've been doing throughout this is you've been making claims and you just say everyone's wrong if they don't agree with you and what you believe.

And yet you say things, you say things that are just completely untrue.

By the way, where was I going to look here earlier?

Jesse put this one up for you.

He.

He went to AI to ask, was there two sets of the early church fathers.

AI says yes.

The early church fathers are generally divided into two categories, the anti Nicene and the post Nicene.

So what you have there is what.

You were referring to, Andrew?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Then why didn't you just say it?

Because I was doing something called a live stream.

Yeah, but earlier, I'm sorry if I didn't have time.

Why wouldn't you have just said that that was your point and then provided evidence instead of.

Because I didn't have time to look it up because I was doing something called a live stream.

I mean, so.

So, so someone else looked it up.

But notice, I want everyone to notice.

Notice that when he's when he's given evidence, what does he do?

Does you see him going, oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong?

No, he just goes, okay, why didn't you just do that?

The fact is there were pejorative.

Yeah.

So the implication that you're making is that they had some of views but they didn't.

So you can say sure, they were an anti nicene and whatever Nicene fathers, but they all believe they were all part of the same church, the same organization, they all have the same views.

And yet they're the same books that have parts edited out.

What are you talking about?

Okay, so the early church fathers wrote and then what we end up having is later.

You have people that the Catholic version where it's edited, that's not the original early church fathers.

Those are the ones that came later.

So you have some of the same books that are edited out.

So when you say that it goes all the way back, that's because you're only looking at an edited version of the early church fathers.

So you can't even know what your tradition is because unless you have a.

Specific example, I'm not even sure what the point of saying is.

So here so with give me, give.

Me an example of some sort of.

Contradiction that occurred and I have to do it right now, right?

You don't have to.

We can talk further in email.

But I'm just saying if you're going to make that sort of claim then like.

Okay, doesn't really mean anything to say it unless.

No, it doesn't mean anything to you because it doesn't mean anything to you because you are held captive by your tradition.

All right?

And you, you are the one who is held captive by your own man made tradition is the point.

Okay, what, what is my man comes.

From a long line of Christians who believe the same thing as me.

What is my man made tradition?

Since, since I'm my tradition, the only thing I'm holding to is the Bible.

I don't, I'm not holding to a tradition.

So yeah, that's your tradition that started in the 15th century after the Bible was mass started.

Here comes the Reformation argument.

Okay, so, so my tradition, my tradition.

Hold on my.

Was.

Okay, my.

If you're going to argue that.

If you're going to argue that my tradition goes back to Leviticus, I'm going back to Leviticus.

That's where I get the gospel from.

Was, was there a reformation in the time of Leviticus?

No.

Okay, It's Leviticus that sells.

That would teach us that we can't be saved by.

By man, but only by God and God alone.

That's in Leviticus.

Was.

Was the Roman Catholic Church.

Did that exist?

I don't believe.

Huh.

I believe they're always saved through God and God alone.

Yeah, and God alone.

God alone is face.

No.

No works.

No works.

What's that?

Faith and works?

Or.

Or.

Yeah, if you're.

If you're a Christian, you will avoid sin.

That's.

That's a good work.

And you will.

You will.

You will be encouraged to do things that help you avoid sin.

That's after regeneration.

We're talking regeneration.

Baptismal regeneration or.

No, just regeneration.

Just being converted.

Okay, so we're talking about baptismal regeneration.

No, we are not.

No, not baptismal regeneration.

Baptism is a work.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay, so at the point of regeneration, when someone goes from being an enemy of God to a child of God.

Okay, is that our works required, or is it faith alone?

Yeah, it requires repentance.

Is that a work?

Yes.

Okay.

To feel sorry for your sin is something that you actively need to try to do it.

Does repentance mean to feel sorry for your sin?

It's a change of heart.

No, it isn't.

Do you know what the word metanoia means?

Let's look up what repentance means.

Well, look up what the word metanoia means.

Okay, but we're talking about the word repentance.

That is the word repentance.

In the Greek, repentance means a change of mind.

Denotes a change of mind, a reorientation, fundamental transportation, transformation of outlook.

Yeah, so it's not a change of heart.

It's a change of mind.

It's a change of thinking.

It's.

It has to do with our sin nature turning from our self to God.

So, but.

But you believe that's a work.

And yet the Scriptures teach that we are saved, not as a result of works.

Yeah, it does say that we're saved through works.

And where does it say that?

Give me a second.

Are you thinking maybe James, chapter two?

We're talking about Christ's urging his followers to cut off occasions of sin in Matthew 29:5, 29:30.

Okay, but that's.

Again, thee.

Pluck it out and cast it from thee.

And if I write.

That's not talking about.

Okay, but is he speaking to believers?

There?

Is Christ speaking to his followers?

His believers?

I'm not sure.

I'll have to look at the context.

Yeah, he's speaking to the disciples.

The apostles are there.

Right.

So again, we're talking regeneration, Not Sanctification.

You see, I'm trying to be precise with you and simple, so you could see.

Sebastian, I feel bad for you.

I really do, because you are so blind and you don't see it.

And I know you don't see it because.

Because this tradition has taken you captive and that's why my heart breaks for you.

Okay, let me ask you this.

You're shaking your head no.

Could you be wrong about what you believe?

No, I am fully convinced and I'm completely firm in my thought, okay?

Because I have conviction.

Because you have conviction.

Have you ever been wrong in your conviction before in your entire life there?

Well, of course, but.

Okay, so how do you.

How do you see the truth?

How do you sin to actively try to unsee it?

Okay.

How do you know you can't be wrong in this conviction if you've been wrong in other convictions?

Well, I can ask you the same thing.

I can answer it, okay?

Because my authority is God's word, not myself.

So is mine.

No, it isn't.

You just said your convictions.

Tradition is God's word and the Bible even says that.

You didn't say that.

You said your conviction.

So I'll ask the question again.

Could you be wrong about your conviction, about your beliefs, your tradition?

Everything I believe is completely substantiated by Bible and by what Christians have believed for the past 2000 years.

Okay?

It's substantiated.

How do you know it's substantiated?

Completely substantiated.

There's no room for.

And I would imagine you would believe the same thing.

Otherwise, why are you asking to me?

Well, there's.

There becomes a difference because what you're doing is.

You're.

You're.

Let's take, for example, this discussion of regeneration.

In this discussion of regeneration, I.

We're.

Alex and I are asking about that point when you go from being an unbeliever to a believer.

You.

Twice now.

I.

I misunderstood.

Okay?

Yeah.

I don't even get to finish.

You have to receive the gospel message.

That's.

That's one of.

One of the requirements.

What are the other requirements?

What's that?

What are the other requirements?

Well, of course, you would have to repent for your sin.

Is that okay?

Is that a work?

Yeah, because it involves confession, which is what the Bible teaches.

It's a changing of the mind.

It has nothing to do with what you say.

Okay, but Christians have always confessed their sins to a priest.

That has nothing to do.

You see, this is.

This is the point.

And I.

I encourage you to Go back and listen to yourself to see how many times we asked a very specific question.

You answer, son.

Totally unrelated.

You keep doing the red herrings unrelated because it's.

You have to understand the big picture here.

You're.

You're trying to.

You're.

You're thinking is like this, but that's not what the Bible.

That's not how you read the Bible.

It's.

It's a big picture.

Sebastian, let me, Let me ask.

Big picture thing.

Let me ask you a question.

Are all your sins forgiven right now?

I.

If I were to go to confession right now to a priest and receive absolution to a validly ordained one at that, then my sins would be forget.

So when, when, when are your sins forgiven?

Yeah.

At the point that the priest absolves them.

Okay.

Would you mind.

I might be wrong about that.

Maybe.

I don't know if it's.

I don't know if it's as soon as they're committed or if it's after they're absolved, but you can't.

You can't go to heaven unless.

Could you.

Your sins are absolved by.

Could you.

Could you read to Me Colossians chapter 2, verse 13.

This is just going off tangent.

No, actually, it's not.

What is it?

Two Colossians.

Colossians chapter 2 and verse 13.

Can we spend this time with you because we love and care for you.

I could be playing with my baby and eat my dinner.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm the same way.

I.

I hope and pray for you guys to come out of your blindness.

Okay, read the.

Read the verse.

Well, can you read it?

I'm.

You have it in front of you.

Anyway, so it says.

It says when.

When you were dead in your tresp.

Transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh.

He made you alive.

Together with him.

Having forgiven us all our transgressions.

Having canceled out the certificate of debt, consisting of the decrees against us, which was hostility to us.

Now, how many transgressions does he say that are.

He's taken care of here?

Is it some of them?

All of them?

I don't know.

It says, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

So how many transgressions.

I was reading something else at the same time.

Okay.

And this is what you've been doing throughout the show is not paying attention to what we're saying and saying because you're.

So you're looking to respond.

Well, likewise.

It's been.

It's been going both ways, so.

No, it Isn't.

It hasn't.

Because we've been able to identify where you're not listening and we're.

Every time I respond it's oh, you go off on attention.

Oh, that's right, because you do.

But the point is that these are valid responses.

Have I misrepresented at any point your belief system?

Have I said what you believe and described it inaccurately?

I.

Yeah, when you.

When we were Talking about Vatican 2 earlier in the show and you were confusing the different Popes.

Okay, wait, wait, wait.

So are you saying that I said that you believe in Vatican 2 in the current Pope?

Because I think I was pretty clear.

That you don't representing the Church.

Okay, but you're talking about my beliefs.

Yeah, I would say you've been.

You've been pretty.

Pretty accurate.

You know why that is?

I actually listened to you.

And yet over and over again we.

You mean Alex said the same thing earlier.

You're not listening because you keep misrepresenting.

You're trying to answer before you even get.

Before a question even gets asked.

Just so.

It's just so heretical.

I'm compelled to.

It's almost impossible to just come.

Okay, listen, let me.

Hold on.

I want to make sure I understood this correctly.

You're saying that we're so heretical that you have to misrepresent us?

Is that I'm saying.

I just.

That's what.

That was the question.

That was clearly what you guys believe.