Need Help Responding to Attack on our Faith

This isn't his argument, or even his only argument. My God, there are three hours of back and forth here. He brings up many arguments, and in certain instances, I'm sorry, but the opponent is unable to answer and clearly stumped.
[...]

I understand people have better things to do than sit for three hours and listen to a small hat arrogantly insult our faith, but I do believe it would be a wise move for anyone here to just leave it on in the background when doing chores, cooking, etc., as I really would like the ability to counter his positions, but am admittedly not armed with the knowledge that I am sure many others here have.
Your task is to clearly explain the arguments and reasons you find them compelling. If these arguments have influenced you to the extent of questioning your beliefs, then you should be able to describe them. If you're unable to do so, it either means you don't fully grasp the arguments, or you're not engaging sincerely.
 
Do you attend and follow the bogus Vatican 2 religion, or are you an actual Catholic elevenBravo?

Almost all Vatican 2 adherents don’t have a basic understanding of the Catholic faith and its apologetics, so I’m not too surprised that a YouTube video was enough to shake their faith.
...But why would you needlessly open that huge can of worms on an unrelated thread?
 
Your task is to clearly explain the arguments and reasons you find them compelling. If these arguments have influenced you to the extent of questioning your beliefs, then you should be able to describe them. If you're unable to do so, it either means you don't fully grasp the arguments, or you're not engaging sincerely.
Or that I didn't consider coming here with this issue as I watched a three-hour video, absorbed in it. But yes, I can note them and come back here to list them. I have no issue doing that.
 
Your task is to clearly explain the arguments and reasons you find them compelling. If these arguments have influenced you to the extent of questioning your beliefs, then you should be able to describe them. If you're unable to do so, it either means you don't fully grasp the arguments, or you're not engaging sincerely.
Yeah maybe we should have an extra thread for the super-compelling arguments for being a "non Vatican II Catholic" and not Orthodox. Very excited to hear about it, I bet it's going to be 400 IQ scholastic stuff.

This guy who asked about Jewish apologetics, he's clearly either not grasping any arguments or he's a troll. The truly based position is to be part of one of the schismatic Roman Catholic groups, that's just the conclusion very intelligent people come to.

The "Vat II religion" believers? Their faith is easily shaken, because it's not based on waterproof dogma, that is solidly rooted in the rulings of the unoccupied office of the infallible pope.

Non Vat II Roman Catholic arguments are extremely conclusive and simple, and like, it's just YOUR TASK to know them.
 
But why are you debating a noahide? You need to ignore these people. I get it, I really do, I used to be really into these types of debates. But you're not going to convince someone who became a big shabbos goy to come back to Christianity by deboonking his arguments. It doesn't work like that. It never does. That guy you're dealing with, his problem is spiritual in nature and not a matter of logical discussion.
This is exactly how I normally feel when I see small hats with their silly shit on YouTube, but this one is different. There's an arrogance to him, and an approach to the topic that I haven't seen before. I've seen other debates like this plenty, but this one is just different. I can't explain. If you don't have the time or the care, I understand, but I believe you'll see what I mean if you watch it, or put it on as background noise. This isn't droning on and on, like Tovia Singer, or whining about centuries of antisemitism, like the rest of them.
 
Or that I didn't consider coming here with this issue as I watched a three-hour video, absorbed in it. But yes, I can note them and come back here to list them. I have no issue doing that.
Great, but before you list them, try and perform your own research and if you cannot find a satisfactory response to your questions, then post them here. You have to be careful not to lump all Christians together with Catholics because the apologetics is different. For example, this response is not consistent with Catholic teachings on the Bible and is more in line with certain Protestant denominations:
But okay, as just one example: his main argument is that if a book claims to be divine, but has even one human error in it, it's automatically invalidated as divine, as God doesn't make mistakes like humans do.

If you want a video on how Catholics actually interpret the Holy Scripture, watch below:

 
I believe you'll see what I mean if you watch it, or put it on as background noise.
I get what you mean, and I can see that you have good intentions, but why would a Christian listen to that, when there's so many highly edifying podcasts to listen to instead? A Jew trying to deboonk Christianity, as if their religion was not blatantly satanic, is just absolutely intolerable to me. I am not willing to even entertain such nonsense.
Yeah maybe we should have an extra thread for the super-compelling arguments for being a "non Vatican II Catholic" and not Orthodox. Very excited to hear about it, I bet it's going to be 400 IQ scholastic stuff.

This guy who asked about Jewish apologetics, he's clearly either not grasping any arguments or he's a troll. The truly based position is to be part of one of the schismatic Roman Catholic groups, that's just the conclusion very intelligent people come to.

The "Vat II religion" believers? Their faith is easily shaken, because it's not based on waterproof dogma, that is solidly rooted in the rulings of the unoccupied office of the infallible pope.

Non Vat II Roman Catholic arguments are extremely conclusive and simple, and like, it's just YOUR TASK to know them.
Yep, thread's derailed.
 
I get what you mean, and I can see that you have good intentions, but why would a Christian listen to that, when there's so many highly edifying podcasts to listen to instead? A Jew trying to deboonk Christianity, as if their religion was not blatantly satanic, is just absolutely intolerable to me. I am not willing to even entertain such nonsense.

Yep, thread's derailed.
He's got a right to ask, and I generally don't go on the offensive against RC unless explicitly provoked. I've been defending eleven for reasons I clearly gave, and then people maintaining a smug condescending attitude while clearly being on a wild path themselves is intolerable to me.

I think everybody here knows that I have no problem with people goofing on interlopers, but we're not a serious free speech forum if a guy (whom you know nothing about, could be a Christianity noob or a teenager) asks questions about objections from other faiths and gets attacked for it.

That's just a run-of-the-mill, regular ass question a person inquiring into the faith might have. He's given no indication that he's here to disturb anybody, and considering the condescension he's received, he remained fairly respectful.
 
Last edited:
but why would a Christian listen to that, when there's so many highly edifying podcasts to listen to instead?
Because this one is a threat. This rabbi has claimed to have gotten emails from thousands Christians over the years, who have dropped Christianity to either convert to be juice, or to become these "Noahides," and he claims that even many clergy members have done so. I'd normally write that off, but if you look at his main channel, it's massively popular. If you click on any of his weekly lectures, there are comments from people noting how they, indeed, dropped Christianity (which they now call "idolatry") and have done the above.

I understand the desire to be dismissive (or even the ability to, for those who are well-versed in the topic and have strong knowledge to fight back with), but he's a formidable threat in literally cutting people off from being saved, and he makes us look bad as he does it and with each new adherent who proudly sings his praises and shares their story, etc.
 
He's got a right to ask, and I generally don't go on the offensive against RC unless explicitly provoked. I've been defending eleven for reasons I clearly gave, and then people maintaining a smug condescending attitude while clearly being on a wild path themselves is intolerable to me.

I think everybody here knows that I have no problem with people goofing on interlopers, but we're not a serious free speech forum if a guy (whom you know nothing about, could be a Christianity noob or a teenager) asks questions about objections from other faiths.

That's just a run-of-the-mill, regular ass question a person inquiring into the faith might have. He's given no indication that he's here to disturb anybody, and considering the condescension he's received, he remained fairly respectful.
I never provoked you and you are ascribing motivations to me that do not exist. I hope whatever you are dealing with in your day-to-day life improve. I mean that sincerely brother.
 
His initial argument begins with Scriptural inerrancy. This is something I also believe in. The Bible has no errors. Scripture is God-Breathed: it is able to make you compete in the doctrine that it teaches. That is not something it can accomplish if it is not inerrant.

Where his argument lacks nuance is in his bypassing of textual criticism. Which manuscript is he pointing to as that pure copy of the original Scriptures? You essentially have 3 sources at that point, the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (as well as other fragmentary manuscripts). Because the Septuagint is a translation, not the original, preference is given to the Hebrew texts.

However, Jews generally just default to the Masoretic Text without giving consideration to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is problematic as the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the MT and at times are at variance with the MT, less so than with the LXX, but there are variances.

In other words, the standard that he is imposing on the New Testament is one that would also undo his own argument if he is putting forth the MT as the sole, infallible text.
 
I never provoked you and you are ascribing motivations to me that do not exist
You admitted as much when asking people not to consider your post about Vat II. I ascribed no motivations to you, I ascribed to you the attribute of being smug while standing on shaky ground. I don't particularly care about your "sincerity", given that your belief system is a cope and a meme that you can't help but shoving into people's faces, but thanks for articulating it anyway.
 
His initial argument begins with Scriptural inerrancy. This is something I also believe in. The Bible has no errors. Scripture is God-Breathed: it is able to make you compete in the doctrine that it teaches. That is not something it can accomplish if it is not inerrant.

Where his argument lacks nuance is in his bypassing of textual criticism. Which manuscript is he pointing to as that pure copy of the original Scriptures? You essentially have 3 sources at that point, the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (as well as other fragmentary manuscripts). Because the Septuagint is a translation, not the original, preference is given to the Hebrew texts.

However, Jews generally just default to the Masoretic Text without giving consideration to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is problematic as the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the MT and at times are at variance with the MT, less so than with the LXX, but there are variances.

In other words, the standard that he is imposing on the New Testament is one that would also undo his own argument if he is putting forth the MT as the sole, infallible text.
Thank you for taking this seriously. I am not sure if you watched the entire debate or not, and I don't have timestamps, but he covers the issue of the transmission of the OT without any errors in a fashion that I found surprisingly convincing. I am not speaking for him or his cheerleader, but if you get to that part, even the Christian professor sits quietly, as I was doing, because I learned about the process and had absolutely no idea that it was done the way he described it so as to avoid errors. I am glad you brought this point up, because it was one of the more unsettling aspects of his argumentation, and he had it ready to go and was able to describe it in great detail, without the slightest issue, once the professor challenged him on issues of transmission errors in the OT.

THIS is why I came here -- not so that people could insult my Catholicism or accuse me of being a kik3.
 
You admitted as much when asking people not to consider your post about Vat II. I ascribed no motivations to you, I ascribed to you the attribute of being smug while standing on shaky ground. I don't particularly care about your "sincerity", given that your belief system is a cope and a meme that you can't help but shoving into people's faces, but thanks for articulating it anyway.
I appreciate your perspective and understand that discussions like these can evoke strong emotions. It's clear we have differing viewpoints, particularly regarding the interpretation and implications of Vatican II, which is a topic both rich in history and complex in its impact on faith and doctrine. My intention was never to undermine or belittle anyone's beliefs or personal convictions. Instead, I aimed to foster a respectful dialogue, hoping to share and possibly broaden our understandings of such a significant subject.

I respect your right to critique and question, as it is through such exchanges that we can all grow and learn. It was not my aim to appear smug or to stand on uncertain grounds, but rather to invite an open and honest exchange of ideas.

At the core of our discussions should be mutual respect and a willingness to listen, even when we disagree. I hope we can move forward from this conversation with a renewed commitment to those principles, recognizing that while we may hold different views, our shared interest in seeking understanding and truth is valuable and worthy of respectful discourse.
 
Thank you for taking this seriously. I am not sure if you watched the entire debate or not, and I don't have timestamps, but he covers the issue of the transmission of the OT without any errors in a fashion that I found surprisingly convincing. I am not speaking for him or his cheerleader, but if you get to that part, even the Christian professor sits quietly, as I was doing, because I learned about the process and had absolutely no idea that it was done the way he described it so as to avoid errors. I am glad you brought this point up, because it was one of the more unsettling aspects of his argumentation, and he had it ready to go and was able to describe it in great detail, without the slightest issue, once the professor challenged him on issues of transmission errors in the OT.

THIS is why I came here -- not so that people could insult my Catholicism or accuse me of being a kik3.
I'm taking it pieces at a time. Those were more of my first impressions. I'll continue listening to the rest.

Jews try to play a game of "just read the original Hebrew." The question is, what original Hebrew? The Masoretes had a very technical system of how they preserved their textual tradition, and while very impressive, that data does not answer the question of why the MT can be at variance with the DSS.

This is why textual criticism is important. Oftentimes groups will cling to any one manuscript or textual tradition and say that it is the sole, infallible Scripture. Jews do it with the MT. Christians do it with the KJV, the Vulgate, the Septuagint. There is no one pure infallible manuscript, but there are manuscripts that have a better standing to closely representing the original text when it was first inscripturated.
 
I'm taking it pieces at a time. Those were more of my first impressions. I'll continue listening to the rest.

Jews try to play a game of "just read the original Hebrew." The question is, what original Hebrew? The Masoretes had a very technical system of how they preserved their textual tradition, and while very impressive, that data does not answer the question of why the MT can be at variance with the DSS.

This is why textual criticism is important. Oftentimes groups will cling to any one manuscript or textual tradition and say that it is the sole, infallible Scripture. Jews do it with the MT. Christians do it with the KJV, the Vulgate, the Septuagint. There is no one pure infallible manuscript, but there are manuscripts that have a better standing to closely representing the original text when it was first inscripturated.
Many thanks. Sincerely. I appreciate you taking the time.
 
Thank you for taking this seriously. I am not sure if you watched the entire debate or not, and I don't have timestamps, but he covers the issue of the transmission of the OT without any errors in a fashion that I found surprisingly convincing. I am not speaking for him or his cheerleader, but if you get to that part, even the Christian professor sits quietly, as I was doing, because I learned about the process and had absolutely no idea that it was done the way he described it so as to avoid errors. I am glad you brought this point up, because it was one of the more unsettling aspects of his argumentation, and he had it ready to go and was able to describe it in great detail, without the slightest issue, once the professor challenged him on issues of transmission errors in the OT.

THIS is why I came here -- not so that people could insult my Catholicism or accuse me of being a kik3.
Oh, me dear friend, ain't it a wonder, the way words do dance and weave through the ages, untouched by the clumsy hands of time and error? And ain't it a peculiar thing, how a single debate can open our eyes to truths we never dreamed of, as if we was blind but now we see, eh? Ain't it just like stumbling upon a hidden treasure in the murky depths of London town, discovering that the transmission of the OT was guarded so fiercely, so cleverly, that not a single error dared to tarnish its sacred pages?

But why, I asks ya, why do we find ourselves in such a pickle, defending our beliefs 'gainst those who'd rather toss insults than understand? Ain't we all wanderin' the same foggy streets, searchin' for a bit of light? And here you are, sharing what you've learned, spreading knowledge like a true scholar, and yet, some choose to scoff and scorn. Ain't it a bit of a shame, that?

Still, you stand your ground, you do, armed with conviction and a newfound understanding, much like a hero in one of them grand tales, ready to face the world with truth as your shield. And ain't that somethin' to be proud of, I wonder? For in the midst of all the noise and natter, you've found a gem worth holding tight to, and ain't that the real treasure, after all?
 
Because this one is a threat. This rabbi has claimed to have gotten emails from thousands Christians over the years, who have dropped Christianity to either convert to be juice, or to become these "Noahides," and he claims that even many clergy members have done so. I'd normally write that off, but if you look at his main channel, it's massively popular. If you click on any of his weekly lectures, there are comments from people noting how they, indeed, dropped Christianity (which they now call "idolatry") and have done the above.

I understand the desire to be dismissive (or even the ability to, for those who are well-versed in the topic and have strong knowledge to fight back with), but he's a formidable threat in literally cutting people off from being saved, and he makes us look bad as he does it and with each new adherent who proudly sings his praises and shares their story, etc.
There will always be retards who follow charlatans. I understand why you're worried/disturbed by the idea of thousands of Christians converting to noahidism, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. In order to subscribe to something as absurd as noahidism, you need to already be a Christian in name only. There are indeed even priests out there who are totally clueless and unserious. That's assuming that this Jew isn't just making that emails thing up wholecloth.

There are charlatans a thousand times larger than this guy out there. That's just the age we live in. If you spend time worrying about this type of thing then you'll just go insane. It's a complete waste of mental energy because there's nothing you can do about it. Sure, you can debate these people, but that doesn't amount to much and it'll mostly just stress you out unnecessarily and take many hours of your life away.
 
Last edited:
There will always be retards who follow charlatans. I understand why you're worried/disturbed by the idea of thousands of Christians converting to noahidism, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. In order to subscribe to something as absurd as noahidism, you need to already be a Christian in name only. There are indeed even priests out there who are totally clueless and unserious. That's assuming that this Jew isn't just making that emails thing up wholecloth.

There are charlatans a thousand times larger than this guy out there. That's just the age we live in. If you spend time worrying about this type of thing then you'll just go insane. It's a complete waste of mental energy because there's nothing you can do about it. Sure, you can debate these people, but that doesn't amount to much and it'll mostly just stress you out unnecessarily and take many hours of your life away.
I would just prefer to be able to shut down such arguments, and cut off any others from falling into the gutter (and stop making people like him look good to those who don't know better) than to allow it to continue festering. Worse: continue snowballing and getting stronger.
 
Back
Top